search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful traits: browser-based retrieval that bypasses HTTP-client blocking, no API key, and no per-search cost. It omits operational behavior an agent would want before calling it repeatedly — rate limits, latency, CAPTCHA/blocking failure modes, and what happens when 'auto' engine fallback exhausts all engines.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then mechanism, then cost — each sentence adds a distinct fact with no repetition of the schema. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 three-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, deployment mechanism, and cost, which is close to sufficient. The remaining gaps are relative to its sibling — no statement of how 'search' relates to 'page' — and unstated failure behavior.

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 (query, limit, engine) is already documented in the schema, including the default of 10 and the engine enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource ('Search the web') and even states the return shape ('title, url, snippet'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling tool 'page', which an agent could confuse with a search variant.

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 implicitly recommends itself for sites that block plain HTTP clients ('Uses a real headless browser'), which is a real context cue. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to the sibling 'page' tool for fetching a specific result URL, so selection between the two is left to inference.

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