websearch

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minor context about not requiring API keys, but does not go beyond what annotations imply. No contradictions.

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 reasonably concise at five lines, including an example. However, there is some redundancy (e.g., 'Performs a web search' and 'allows searching the live web'), and the structure could be tightened without losing clarity.

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 description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral context (no API keys). With an output schema presumably present, it does not need to detail return values. It could be more complete by explicitly contrasting with 'fetch_url' or listing limitations, but overall it's adequate.

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 input schema provides detailed descriptions for all five parameters, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning or context about parameters beyond what the schema already 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 performs a web search and returns results, specifying it searches the live web for current information. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'fetch_url' by being a search rather than a URL fetch, and provides concrete examples of use cases (news, documentation, facts).

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (retrieving news, documentation, general facts) and includes an example (recent events, technical documentation). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with the sibling 'fetch_url', missing an opportunity for clearer guidance.

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