web_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses automatic fallback, registry verification, and filtering capabilities, but lacks details on rate limits, caching, or potential delays. The statement 'details intentionally not exposed' reduces transparency.

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 well-organized into sections (usage, features, notes), with concise sentences. No redundant information; each sentence contributes to understanding the tool's functionality.

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 6 parameters and no output schema. The description explains features and usage, but does not describe the return format (e.g., structure of search results). Given the complexity, this gap reduces completeness.

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%, with description coverage also 100%. The description adds minor context (e.g., 'Be specific for better results' for query, default for recency), but does not significantly enrich the parameter semantics 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 explicitly states 'Search the web via EnriProxy's multi-tier search service' and lists specific use cases (current info, tech solutions, fact-checking). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'web_fetch' which likely fetches a single page.

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 'When to use' section provides clear scenarios, and the 'Notes' give guidance on query specificity and recency filtering. However, it does not explicitly contrast with 'web_fetch' or state when not to use this tool.

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