qwen_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs web search, returns answers with source citations, and is appropriate for current information. This is transparent for a read-only search tool, though it omits details about error handling, rate limits, or citation format specifics.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core function ('use Qwen to enable web search') followed by the return behavior and suitable use cases. There is no wasted wording, and the semicolon effectively separates the what from the when.

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 simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, mentions the return format (comprehensive answer with citations), and outlines use cases. It does not mention sibling alternatives explicitly, but all other essential context is present.

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% with both 'query' and 'max_tokens' documented in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the Tongyi Qianwen model to enable web search, retrieves the latest information, and returns a comprehensive answer with source citations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools qwen_chat and qwen_vision by emphasizing its search capability and suitability for time-sensitive topics.

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 explicitly lists suitable use cases: 'suitable for time-sensitive questions, news, events, product information, etc.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools, falling short of a full 5.

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