run_web_harvest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes key actions ('search Google', 'collect leads', 'creates or updates agent') and output data, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is idempotent. The mention of agent management adds some context, but behavioral traits are not fully transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and efficiently details the output in the second. It avoids redundancy and uses clear language, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the output details into the initial statement without sacrificing clarity.

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 complexity of a tool that performs web harvesting and agent management, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and output data but lacks details on behavioral aspects, error cases, and how the agent creation/update works. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's operation.

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%, so the input schema fully documents the three parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints not in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('search Google', 'collect company website leads', 'creates or updates your web harvest agent') and resources ('leads with company names, websites, emails, phone numbers, and social media profiles'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_web_harvest_leads' and 'get_web_harvest_status' by emphasizing the active harvesting and agent management functions.

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 implies usage for lead generation from Google searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like the sibling tools. No guidance is provided on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and description alone.

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