web_search

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that pages are not read and nothing is saved, that results depend on Ajustes → Fact check, and that internet switch/blocked domains are honored. It stops short of describing result ordering or rate/latency behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose and backend first, then the routing alternatives, then freshness, then constraints. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical backend list is slightly long.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still lists the returned fields. With zero annotations and a 0% schema coverage, the description mostly covers the behavioral gaps; only max_results behavior remains unaddressed.

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. It usefully enumerates the freshness values (any, day, month, year), which the schema leaves as a bare string with no enum, but it says nothing about 'query' semantics or 'max_results' limits/defaults.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Busca en internet con el buscador incorporado') and names the interchangeable backends (DuckDuckGo, SearXNG, Brave, Conexiones). It clearly separates itself from siblings by naming read_url, save_url and fact_check as different jobs.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'para leer una, read_url; para guardarla, save_url; para comprobar un dato, fact_check'. It also notes the tool respects the internet toggle and blocked domains, giving the conditions under which it applies.

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