search

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior, and it does a solid job: it discloses the response shape, the engines covered, the verticals, and the relevant pricing. It does not mention rate limits, caching, or failure modes, which is a gap, but there is no contradiction and the core operational behavior is clearly stated.

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?

Two sentences deliver a large amount of information without filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and response contents; the second adds the full vertical count and per-search cost. Every clause earns its place.

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 full parameter schema and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the most important return values and the wide range of verticals well. The main missing element is selection guidance relative to sibling tools, but the information needed to actually invoke the tool is either in the schema or in the description.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of the parameters with helpful descriptions, so the baseline is met. The description only adds the high-level note that there are eighteen verticals and that search spans Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo, or Yandex, which is already visible in the schema. It adds no deeper parameter-specific detail.

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 defines a search-engine resource and the exact output format: organic rows with position, title, link, snippet, and sitelinks, plus related searches and local/news/shopping blocks. It is distinct in substance from scraping or crawling, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or show selection boundaries, so it stops short of perfect.

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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over scrape, map, crawl, or the other siblings. The description says it offers web search results and verticals, but it does not specify alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that would drive an agent toward another tool.

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