Websearch MCP Server

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false) and idempotency (idempotentHint: false), but the description adds useful context about efficiency and the combined operation. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral insight, though it could mention rate limits or authentication needs.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage without unnecessary details. Every sentence adds value, making it well-structured.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations (including readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, efficiency, and differentiation from siblings, which is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description mentions 'top result pages' and 'fetch as markdown,' which adds some context beyond the schema, but doesn't provide detailed semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most parameter information.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('search the web' and 'fetch top result pages as markdown') and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it 'combines search + fetch in one call for efficiency.' This explicitly differentiates it from websearch_search and websearch_fetch_page.

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 provides explicit usage guidance by stating it's for efficiency when combining search and fetch operations, implying alternatives (using separate search and fetch tools) and when to use this tool (for combined operations). This helps the agent choose between this tool and its siblings.

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