ask_web

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and reveals meaningful behavior: an internal sub-agent performs iterative searches, opens web pages, cross-checks information, and returns a concise conclusion with sources. It also warns that the operation consumes a lot of context. It does not mention failure modes or external service dependencies, but covers the main behavioral traits.

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?

Two dense sentences: the first defines what it does, the second when to use it and what behavior to expect. Every clause contributes value and there is no redundant filler.

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 tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the operation, the internal process, the output format (conclusion with sources), and the appropriate scenarios, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 100%, so the single 'question' parameter is already well documented. The description adds context about the kind of questions to ask and notes the research will consume context, but it does not materially extend the parameter's meaning beyond the 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 description clearly states the tool performs web research ('联网查资料') and describes the multi-step behavior: searching, opening pages, cross-verifying, and returning a concise conclusion with sources. It differentiates from siblings implicitly via '联网', but does not explicitly name ask_memory or delegate, so it loses the top point.

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 identifies suitable use cases: checking a library version, a fact, or a price, and characterizes these as context-consuming research tasks. This gives clear usage guidance, though it does not name alternatives or state when NOT to use the tool.

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