search_and_fetch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose meaningful behavior: partial failures are returned alongside successes rather than aborting the whole call. It omits auth/rate-limit or caching behavior, but the failure-handling disclosure is a genuine addition beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose before any detail, then a behavioral note, then a compact Args block. Slight redundancy between the intro and the Args restatements, but nothing wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description adequately covers purpose, failure semantics, and all three parameters. For a simple 3-param convenience tool this is close to complete; only cross-cutting concerns like rate limits or auth are absent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it gives ranges (1-10 for max_results, 1 to max_results for fetch_top) that the schema lacks, plus a safety constraint on query ('Do not include secrets or confidential data'). It doesn't explain the interaction if fetch_top exceeds available results, but the core semantics are covered.

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?

States a specific compound verb+resource: 'Search the web and fetch the top results in one call.' The combining nature implicitly differentiates it from siblings web_search and web_fetch, but it never names them, so the distinction is left to inference.

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?

'This convenience tool reduces agent round trips' gives clear context for when to prefer it over making separate search and fetch calls. No explicit when-not conditions or rate/permission caveats are stated, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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