Cache-only lookup; returns SEARCH_CACHE_MISS error if not in cache. Fixed $0.002/call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query string | |
| country | No | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code | |
| language | No | Language code (e.g. 'en', 'pt-PT') | |
| freshness | No | Recency filter for results | |
| max_results | No | Number of results (1-20, default 10) | |
| search_type | No | Type of search to perform |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It candidly discloses the cache dependency, the specific SEARCH_CACHE_MISS error on failure, and the fixed cost per call – all useful behavioral details beyond the tool name. It doesn't cover every aspect (e.g., rate limits, output format) but covers the most distinctive behaviors.
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 a tight two-sentence summary with the most critical info (cache-only, error, price) front-loaded. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
The tool is a straightforward cached lookup with 6 params and no output schema. The description covers the cache behavior and error, but does not describe what a successful response looks like or how to interpret results. Given the lack of an output schema, some return-format guidance would improve completeness, but the essential usage context is present.
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% (all 6 parameters have descriptions), so the schema fully documents parameter semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information, landing at the baseline score of 3.
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 the tool is a 'cache-only lookup', which clearly identifies a specific operation (lookup) and distinguishes it from sibling search tools by the cache-only constraint. However, it relies on the tool name to imply the resource (web search), and 'lookup' is slightly less explicit than 'search'.
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 'cache-only' qualifier implies this tool should be used when cached results are acceptable, and the error message hints that live tools like web_search_simple or web_search_deep might be alternatives. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and sibling tools are not mentioned by name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each search tool has a distinct purpose: cached, deep, medium, and simple searches are clearly differentiated by query type and cost. The health tool is also clearly separate.
The four search tools follow a consistent web_search_<modifier> pattern, making their hierarchy obvious. The health tool breaks the pattern but is a standard auxiliary endpoint.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of routing search queries. Each tier earns its place without unnecessary duplication.
The search tiers cover a spectrum from cache-only to deep research, and the health check provides operational coverage. No obvious gaps in the search domain.