search_and_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (live search, fetching top pages, returning Markdown and a context string) and adds context about citation-ready sources and token bounding. It doesn't mention any side effects or rate limits, but for a read-only search tool this is reasonable. It also doesn't describe the fetch_content=false variant, leaving that to the schema.

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, zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and output, the second gives concise routing guidance. Every word 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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the operational flow and output format (numbered sources + context string) enough for an agent to call it correctly. It doesn't describe all parameter options, but the schema does. Minor gaps like the fetch_content=false behavior are left uncovered, but the core contract is clear.

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% (every parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning: 'top organic pages' maps to top_n, 'token-bounded' hints at max_tokens, but it doesn't go beyond the schema. No parameter details are missing.

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 opens with a specific multi-step verb phrase: 'Search the live web, fetch the top organic pages as clean Markdown, and return citation-ready numbered sources plus one token-bounded `context` string.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling `search` by naming the output format and the intended research/answering use case.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('when the goal is answering/researching') and when to use the alternative ('use `search` when raw SERP structure or a specialized vertical is needed'), naming the sibling and the discriminating condition.

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