Web Search + Scrape

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the tool is clearly safe and non-destructive. The description adds only a note about ranking by relevance (Spider.cloud), which is minor additional behavioral context. No contradictions observed.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with essential information, and contains no extraneous words. Every sentence provides value: purpose, return data, usage hint, and result ranking.

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 simple search tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how it relates to sibling tools. No additional information is necessary given the annotations and schema.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter descriptions for 'query' and 'limit'. The tool description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the verb 'search' and the resource 'web', and specifies that it returns 'page titles, descriptions, and URLs'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spider.scrape (full content) and other search tools in the sibling list such as search.google.web.

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?

The description explicitly recommends combining with spider.scrape for full content, providing clear context for when to use this tool versus an alternative. It lacks a direct 'when not to use' but the hint is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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