web_search

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

The description discloses the fallback mechanism (DuckDuckGo if Serper fails), which is a useful behavioral detail beyond the schema. However, it does not mention rate limits, query limits, idempotency, or that the tool is read-only. With no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that immediately convey the purpose and key parameters. There is no wasted text, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description should detail what is returned (e.g., result structure, fields). It also lacks information on error handling, rate limiting, or any prerequisites. For a simple web search tool, the description is inadequate for autonomous agent use.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantics for the 'num' parameter by specifying the accepted range (1-50) and its purpose ('Max number of results'). For 'query', it simply repeats the schema's title. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates partially but not fully.

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 'Search the web' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the backend providers (Serper primary, DuckDuckGo fallback), adding useful context. However, it could be more precise about the types of content retrieved (e.g., text, news, images).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. There are no sibling tools to differentiate, but the description lacks any context about appropriate use cases or situations where this tool might be unsuitable.

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