Search1API

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying that it extracts the readable title and full text, and clarifies the URL must be public. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

A single, tightly written sentence that conveys the tool's purpose, input source, and output scope. Every phrase earns its place, and the core behavior is front-loaded.

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, one-parameter, read-only tool with annotations and an output schema present, the description covers what the tool does, what it extracts, and where the URL comes from. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single url parameter is already described as 'Public HTTP or HTTPS URL to retrieve'. The description reinforces the source of the URL but does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('readable title and full text') from a public URL, making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from search-related siblings by focusing on retrieving a specific existing URL rather than discovering pages.

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 clear context: use this when a public URL is already available, either supplied by the user or returned by search. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is understandable without additional guidance.

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=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it produces citable article results and can return extracted text. It does not overpromise and no contradiction exists.

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, front-loaded with the usage trigger before the return details, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With a rich schema (100% coverage), annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficient for a straightforward news lookup. It could be slightly more complete by pointing to a sibling for non-news trends, but nothing essential is missing.

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 the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description's only parameter-relevant contribution is implying that optional extracted text comes from the crawl behavior, which adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Search current news'), states the exact user trigger ('recent events, announcements, or coverage'), and names the return payload (citable articles with title, URL, snippet). This makes it easy to separate from sibling tools such as generic search or trending.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when the user asks about recent events, announcements, or coverage. It does not enumerate when-not conditions or alternative sibling tools, so it falls just short of the strongest guidance.

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 mark readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context: it searches the live public web, returns citable results with specific fields, and signals that full-page retrieval is a separate step. This meaningfully supplements the annotations.

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 sentences with no wasted content. The purpose is front-loaded, the return shape is stated, and the follow-up routing to crawl is included efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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 7-parameter tool with a full output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the core purpose, result format, and relationship to the crawl tool. It does not mention other sibling distinctions, but the rich schema and annotations fill most gaps.

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 the baseline is 3 and the description need not elaborate. The description does not add much parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 ('Search the live public web'), the resource, and the trigger condition ('when the user needs current information, sources, or research'). It also distinguishes from the sibling crawl tool by explaining that full page retrieval happens via passing a result URL to crawl.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool and mentions the crawl sibling for page retrieval. However, it does not explicitly contrast with news, sitemap, or trending, so the agent must infer those alternatives from names rather than guidance.

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=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'public' and 'related' scope but does not disclose additional behaviors such as rate limits, breadth limits, or pagination. It adds some context without contradicting annotations.

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 single, front-loaded sentence that combines the main action, target resource, and usage context without filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and safe-read annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly explains what the tool does and when to use it, though a brief note contrasting it with 'crawl' would make it fully complete.

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%, and the url parameter is already well described in the schema. The main description only says 'from a page or domain,' which adds slight emphasis on accepted URL scope but does not meaningfully go beyond the structured parameter documentation.

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 specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('related public links from a page or domain') and adds the exploration use case. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'crawl' tool, which may perform a similar link-discovery function.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'when the user wants to explore a site's structure or available pages.' It does not mention exclusions or compare itself to alternatives such as 'crawl', so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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 establish read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: the tool returns ephemeral, current trending items from two specific platforms. It does not discuss rate limits or failure modes, but the annotations lower the burden and the description is consistent with them.

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 single sentence that front-loads the core action and object, then adds the usage trigger. Every phrase earns its place; there is no redundant or filler content.

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 has a rich annotation set, fully documented parameters, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety semantics. The description covers the essential context—what is listed and when to use it—making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 the parameters are already fully documented with types, defaults, ranges, and enums. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail; it only reinforces the platform concept already present in the schema. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names the exact resources ('trending repositories or stories from GitHub or Hacker News'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling tools by scoping to trending/popular content rather than general news, search, or crawling.

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 states the trigger condition: 'when the user asks what is popular now.' This gives clear when-to-use context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or directly contrast it with sibling alternatives.

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