search_web

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Live' hints at real-time retrieval, but there is nothing about rate limits, query freshness, result ranking, or whether results are cached or safe to repeat; the presence of an output schema covers return shape but not these 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though that efficiency comes partly at the cost of missing detail rather than through tight packaging of useful information.

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?

For a three-parameter search tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description is too thin. It should at minimum explain the search_type modes and result-limiting behavior, since neither the schema nor the description documents them.

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 0% for three parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. It never mentions max_results or search_type, nor what values search_type accepts (the schema only shows a 'text' default with no enum), leaving the agent blind to how to control result volume or search mode.

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?

States a concrete verb (perform a live web search) and the resource returned (URLs, articles, snippets) for any topic. This is clear enough to distinguish it from extraction siblings like scrape_url or extract_pdf, but it never names or differentiates itself from the closest siblings such as search_and_scrape or osint_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 phrase 'for any topic' implies broad applicability but gives no when-to-use versus when-not guidance. With siblings like search_and_scrape (search plus fetch) and osint_search (targeted intelligence) in the same namespace, the description should state which one an agent should pick, and it does not.

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