search_web_v2

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it discloses nothing about read-only behavior, cost or rate limits, authentication or session requirements, whether results are cached, or how the modes affect behavior. The phrase 'evidence authority' is too vague to compensate.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to front-load any useful operational context for a seven-parameter tool.

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?

This is a complex search tool with seven parameters, an enum mode, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions. Although an output schema exists and need not be explained, the description does not provide nearly enough context for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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% across seven parameters, and the description explains none of them. The meanings of 'mode', 'caller', 'free_only', 'session_id', 'max_results', and 'include_attribution' are left entirely undocumented.

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 verb 'Search' is present, but the resource is described only as 'the HTTP-v2 evidence authority', which is internal jargon that does not tell an agent what is being searched. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'search_web' or explain what the 'v2' authority means in practice.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of 'search_web' or any other sibling. No conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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