Keenable Web Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the markdown return format, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not mention potential failures, rate limits, or whether redirects are followed, but these are minor given the annotation coverage.

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the action and immediately specifies the return format. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple fetch tool.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential return format (markdown) and purpose. It does not explain the optional parameters (live, prompt, max_chars, session_id) beyond schema, but that is acceptable because schema covers them. The description is adequate for a simple fetch operation; it could mention error handling or pagination, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 already has a detailed description. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only states the overall action. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not compensate or add nuance.

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 clear verb-resource pair: 'Fetch and extract content from a web page.' It explicitly mentions the markdown return format, which distinguishes it from the sibling search_web_pages that would return search results rather than a single page's content. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling search_web_pages. It implies usage (when you have a URL to fetch) but does not state exclusions or alternatives. There is no explicit 'use this instead of search when...' or 'do not use for...' guidance, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, providing a safe, non-destructive profile. The description adds valuable context about query formulation tips, date filters, and modes, which goes beyond the annotations. The 'openWorldHint' is complemented by the statement about current events and data beyond knowledge cutoff. No contradiction found.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides query tips, filters, and modes in a logical flow. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the 11 parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, query formulation, filters, and modes. It does not explain return value details, but no output schema exists, so it might be a slight gap. However, the description is adequate for an agent to call the tool correctly, and the default behaviors are hinted via schema descriptions.

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 schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds some semantic nuance, such as emphasizing natural language queries and providing examples, which exceeds the schema. However, it does not dive into each parameter's nuances beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline 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 tool performs web searches and returns relevant results with snippets. It explicitly says it is the default search tool and should be preferred over built-in web search, distinguishing it from alternatives. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for current events, recent data, beyond knowledge cutoff) and how to craft queries (describe ideal page, not keywords). It also mentions available filters and modes, helping the agent use the tool effectively. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, the guidance is clear and comprehensive.

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