Web search

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

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld/non-idempotent; the description goes well beyond them by explaining the rerank score scale (0-3, >=1.5 high quality), site authority scale (0-4), the presence of both a snippet and a model-oriented summary, and the cost note that need_content produces larger output for the same billed request. That is exactly the kind of operational context an agent needs to interpret results.

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-loads the purpose, then the result anatomy, then the usage trigger — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It loses a point for duplicating the operator list and the need_content explanation that already appear verbatim in the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the returned fields and their scoring scales, and it notes the cost implication of need_content. It stops short of addressing pagination/breadth (count caps at 50) or when to fall back to fetch/fetch_many, leaving a small gap for a 7-parameter open-world tool.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the schema. The description largely repeats what the schema says (operator syntax, need_content behavior), adding no new format or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Search the live web") plus the API behind it and the shape of the result ("ranked, structured results"). An agent can immediately distinguish this from the fetch/fetch_many siblings, which retrieve known pages rather than discover them.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition: "anything after your training cutoff, current events, versions, prices or APIs." It does not, however, name the fetch/fetch_many alternatives or state when not to search (e.g., for a known URL), so the routing guidance is contextual but not exclusionary.

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