web_search_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions return format (clean, LLM-optimized results with optional AI answer) but does not disclose rate limits, authentication, or error behavior. Adequate but not detailed.

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 brief with two sentences, front-loading the action verb 'Search'. It is efficient but could better structure parameter hints without adding length.

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 6-parameter tool with 0% schema descriptions and no annotation support, the description is too minimal. It does not cover behavior like recency (days) or result limits, making it incomplete despite having an output schema.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 6 parameters beyond the implied query. No parameter names are mentioned, so the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema's basic structure.

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's purpose: search the web for real-time information and return LLM-optimized results. It distinguishes from sibling 'extract_content_tool' by implying this is for general search while the sibling is for content extraction.

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 use cases ('find current information, news, documentation, or any web content') but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use the tool. It implies the context but lacks direct guidance on comparisons.

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