WebSearch

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

The description discloses the unfiltered nature of results and the backend API (Brave or DuckDuckGo), which adds value beyond the schema. However, it lacks details on rate limits, result count, error handling, or any potential restrictions (e.g., content blocking by default).

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes relevant behavioral details without redundancy. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 lack of output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (title, URL, snippet). However, it omits details on pagination, result count, and error behavior, which could be important for an agent using this tool.

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%, so the description adds minimal extra meaning. It mentions 'no domain blocks' which aligns with the allowed/blocked domains parameters, but it does not elaborate on parameter usage or format beyond what the schema provides.

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 for information) and specifies what it returns (title, URL, snippet). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like ImageSearch and PaperFetch by focusing on general web search.

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 implies when to use (for general web search) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or how it compares to siblings like WebResearch or WebFetch. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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