Search the Web

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well: it discloses the DuckDuckGo/Bing fallback order, the cn.bing.com behavior for Chinese markets, and the meaning of quality_label=poor. This gives agents useful execution expectations beyond what the schema could convey.

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 longer than average, but the length is justified by the need to explain query construction and engine quirks. The opening behavior is front-loaded, and the Args section is clearly organized. A small amount of redundancy exists, but every major sentence adds practical value.

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 output schema exists and annotations are absent, the description covers the key operational context: engine fallback, locale behavior, quality_label handling, and parameter semantics. It lacks explicit when-to-use versus search_images/open/find guidance, but the other information is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret results 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. Each parameter is explained: query receives detailed formulation rules, count is bounded to 1–20, offset to 0–100, market is tied to locale, and safe_search enum values are named. This is far more helpful than the bare 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 first sentence clearly states the action and scope: 'Search the public web.' The description goes beyond the title by specifying engine behavior (DuckDuckGo first, Bing fallback) and the Chinese-market variant, which distinguishes this tool from image or document navigation siblings.

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 strong guidance on how to construct queries, including concrete examples and disambiguation advice (e.g., '复旦光华楼' is better than '光华楼'). It also warns when not to trust results via quality_label. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like search_images, so some sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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