search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is paid and may return payment requirements (x402). However, it does not detail other behaviors like cost implications, result format, or rate limits, which are relevant for agents.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail, though a slightly structured format could improve scannability.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values are covered. However, the description lacks completeness for payment handling, error states, and integration with sibling tools. The single sentence suffices for a simple tool but could provide more context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not elaborate on any of the 4 parameters (query, max_results, payment, payment_identifier). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema field names, failing to clarify parameter usage or constraints.

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 runs a 'paid ranked web search', specifying both the action and resource. It also describes the alternative outcome (returning payment requirements) and implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like extract_page (page extraction) and monitor_diff (monitoring changes).

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?

The description implies the tool is for web search but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over siblings or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are present, limiting the agent's ability to decide between tools.

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