search_web

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key operational details: that searches ride Safari cookies (so results may reflect authenticated sessions), that the engine is configurable via environment variables, and the output format. However, it doesn't disclose rate limiting, pagination behavior, or what happens on empty results.

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 tightly written and front-loaded with the core purpose. The engine/cookie detail is valuable behavioral context but adds length beyond the essentials. Every sentence earns its place, though the format and follow-up guidance could arguably be split for 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?

Given low schema coverage (0%), an output schema exists, and no annotations, the description does substantial work but omits parameter semantics entirely. It covers purpose, output format, engine configuration, and workflow, which is solid for a read-only search tool. The missing parameter explanations for private and max_chars leave a notable gap, but the output schema presumably documents the return structure.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters, but it only mentions the query indirectly. The description doesn't explain what 'private' or 'max_chars' do. The engine configuration context is useful but doesn't address parameter semantics. Since the description does not document any parameter meaning, this scores at baseline for a low-coverage case but not higher.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('Search the web') with clear output format ('results come back as markdown, one linked line per result'). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming fetch_page as the follow-up tool, which differentiates searching from fetching pages.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('search the web') and explicitly directs the agent to 'follow up with fetch_page on the results worth reading,' naming the alternative/next-step tool. It doesn't describe exclusions or when NOT to use it versus archive_search, but it identifies the natural workflow distinction between search and page retrieval.

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