browse_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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what is returned (URLs, titles, snippets, relevance scores) but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify rate limits, authentication needs, potential costs, or how results are sourced (e.g., search engine used). For a web search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first sentence and adds return details in the second. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of a web search tool, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits), parameter usage, and how to interpret results (e.g., relevance scores). The description does not adequately compensate for the missing structured data.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema: it doesn't explain what 'query' should contain (e.g., keywords, phrases) or 'limit' (e.g., max results, default value). With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to provide necessary semantic context.

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 information on a topic.' It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('the web'), and mentions what information is returned. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browse_answer' or 'browse_compare', which likely have related but distinct purposes.

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 its siblings (browse_answer, browse_compare, browse_extract, browse_open). It implies usage for general web searching but offers no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or context for selection among related tools.

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