search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. 'Search by url' doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what kind of data it returns, whether it has rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise at just three words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately specifies the key parameter. While under-specified, it achieves maximum efficiency within its limited scope.

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 tool's apparent simplicity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, what it searches through, or how results are presented. For even a basic search tool, more context about the operation's scope and output is needed for proper agent understanding.

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 description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'url' documented as 'Example value: google.com'. The description 'Search by url' adds minimal semantic context beyond the schema, confirming the parameter's role but not elaborating on format expectations or search behavior. With high schema coverage, the 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 'Search by url' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'search' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'search' and mentions 'url' as the resource, but doesn't explain what kind of search this performs or what it searches through. Compared to sibling tools like 'get_random' and 'list_urls', it doesn't clearly differentiate its specific purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_random' or 'list_urls'. The agent receives no help in determining whether this is the appropriate tool for a given search scenario.

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