search_page

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core mechanics (opens URL, extracts text, returns up to N case-insensitive snippets, returns markdown). However, it doesn't disclose failure modes—such as paywalls, JavaScript-rendered pages that yield no text, or redirects—nor timeouts or how empty results are reported. This is adequate but leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 tightly-written sentences, no filler. The usage trigger is front-loaded in the first clause, and the behavioral detail follows efficiently. Every phrase earns its place and the result format is included.

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 search tool with four fully-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential call contract: purpose, behavior, and return format (markdown snippets). The main omissions—failure behaviors, authentication assumptions, and page-format limits—are secondary for a straightforward public search operation.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema: 'case-insensitive' reinforces the query property and 'up to N' maps to max_matches, but these merely echo schema semantics rather than adding new detail. No compensatory burden since coverage is complete.

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 states a specific, distinct purpose: retrieving query-matching excerpts from a page. It names the resource (public page) and result type (markdown snippets), which clearly separates it from browse_page (full page reading) and extract_links (link harvesting). It earns a 4 but not a 5 because it never explicitly names its siblings to draw the distinction.

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?

'Use this when you need excerpts matching a query on a public page' is an explicit when-to-use statement with a clear triggering condition. The phrase 'public page' implicitly scopes the tool to public content. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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