Grok Web Search

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds that Grok 'autonomously searches, browses pages, and synthesizes results,' giving insight into the autonomous nature and real-time access beyond the structured hints.

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?

Three tight sentences pack the action, behavior, output, and use case without redundant phrasing. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains concise.

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 annotations, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and usage adequately. The absence of an output schema is compensated by 'Returns comprehensive answers,' which sets expectations.

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%; both parameters have descriptive comments (query and efforts). The description itself does not elaborate on parameter details, but the schema handles this, so 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search the web using Grok AI with real-time internet access.' It further specifies autonomous browsing and synthesis, making the purpose specific and distinct even without sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly provides a usage guideline: 'Use for: any scenario requiring real-time web information.' While it doesn't mention when-not to use, 'any scenario' is broad and covers the main use case. Since no sibling tools exist, the lack of alternatives is acceptable.

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