x402_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the monetary cost ($0.01 USDC/call) and the return format (titles, URLs, snippets), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (though implied), nor does it mention rate limits, errors, or any side effects. The disclosure is partial but covers key functional aspects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that packs essential info: purpose, cost, and output. It is front-loaded with the core function. There is zero redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple search tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It states the return content and cost. It does not mention optional parameters or default behavior, but those are covered in the schema. The only notable gap is missing context about when to prefer this tool over sibling search variants, but for a bare search tool, it is fairly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (query and num_results), covering 100% of the schema. The tool description does not add any new meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema states. It merely mentions what the tool returns, not details about the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool performs a web search and returns titles, URLs, and snippets. It is specific enough to indicate general web search, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like x402_news or x402_wiki, which are domain-specific searches. The verb 'search' and resource 'web' make the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is a general web search and that specialized searches (news, wiki, etc.) should use dedicated tools. The description offers no exclusions or contextual selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.