agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it plans searches, fetches and filters pages, returns prose or structured answers, has hard limits, confirms before pro execution, degrades gracefully without LLM keys, and costs credits scaling with maxUrls. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence contributes: use case, mechanism, model variant, hard limits, pro confirmation, degraded mode, exclusions, cost, and example. The key trigger is front-loaded and the density is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 6-parameter autonomous agent tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly: expected return shape, limits, cost, failure behavior, alternatives, and a runnable example. Nothing essential seems missing.

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 100%, so the schema carries the baseline parameter documentation. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the maxUrls cost scaling, the model behavior difference, and a concrete invocation example that maps prompt and maxUrls together.

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 verb and resource: an autonomous agent that researches, navigates, and synthesizes an answer from the web. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by saying it is not for a URL you already have (scrape) or a question one search answers (search_web).

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?

Opens with a direct when-to-use condition ('when you need an autonomous agent... no URLs required') and provides explicit exclusions for scrape and search_web. It also adds usage nuance for model selection, maxUrls costing, and the confirmation requirement before pro runs.

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