Web search

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: routing is pinned to /v1 with no market arbitration, and the call is billed a flat fee referenced to carpe_pricing model augment-search — material for an agent managing spend. It stops short of describing what comes back or how results are shaped or ranked.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the capability, then routing, then cost. The routing sentence ('no market arbitrates web search') is jargon-heavy but does carry real meaning; nothing is padded or repeated.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, an agent still needs the result shape and query semantics before calling, and neither is present. The billing and routing disclosure is helpful, but the required-parameter behavior and returned fields remain unspecified.

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 only 50%: the required 'query' string has no description at all (just minLength 1), and the nested 'extra' object is only loosely documented. The description contributes nothing about query format (natural language? keywords?) or which Venice augment/search options belong in 'extra', so the coverage gap is not compensated.

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 names a concrete verb and resource — 'Live web search through Carpe' — and identifies the backing endpoint (Venice augment/search), so an agent knows exactly what it does. It does not draw the boundary against the nearby sibling carpe_web_scrape, which is the one confusion an agent could realistically hit.

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?

Usage is implied by 'live web search' plus the pointer to carpe_pricing for the flat fee, which is real decision-support for a paid call. It never states when to prefer carpe_web_scrape or carpe_chat instead, so routing between the search and scrape siblings is left to inference.

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