web_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that results are raw and that no automatic synthesis occurs, which is useful behavioral context. However, it omits output format, pagination, rate limits, and any side-effect warnings.

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, compact sentence in Chinese conveys the core functionality and a key exclusion. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise.

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?

Despite the rich schema, the description is too terse for the tool's context: no output schema, no annotations, and a sibling tool with similar purpose. It lacks guidance on result format, limitations, and relationship to advanced_web_search, leaving gaps for the agent.

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% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 quick web search and returns raw results, explicitly noting it does not generate articles. This distinguishes it from content-generation tools but does not differentiate it from the sibling 'advanced_web_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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like advanced_web_search. The phrase 'raw search results' implies use when structured/summarized output is not needed, but no direct comparison or exclusion is given.

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