Search Google or Bing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new operational context: a concrete cost of 30 credits, a refund policy for failed requests, and the JSON return shape. It does not cover rate limits, blocking/captcha behavior, or result-count limits per page, which keeps it below a 5.

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, both dense: capability plus output shape first, then the routing alternative and cost model. No filler and nothing important buried at the end.

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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives enough (output fields, cost, refund) to call it confidently, and the detailed schema fills in query/engine/locale. Minor gaps are behavioral edge cases like pagination limits or failure modes beyond refunds.

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 every parameter including enum constraints on engine and searchType is already documented; the description adds no parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the full semantic load.

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 (get) and resource (search engine results) and enumerates the returned content (organic results, related searches, people also ask). It also distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, scrape_raw_html, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use this instead of fetching google.com/bing.com via scrape_raw_html, which is a clear use-condition plus a named alternative. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., non-search pages, or the specialized retail/real-estate scrapers), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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