web_search

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 the return format (title, url, content, engine, score) which is valuable, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adequately covers what the tool does but lacks operational constraints.

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 well-structured with clear sections (用途, 参数说明, 返回格式) and every sentence earns its place. It's appropriately sized for a 6-parameter tool with no annotations, providing necessary information without redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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 search tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the essentials. It explains the tool's purpose, provides usage examples, documents all parameters with their semantics, and describes the return format. The main gap is the lack of behavioral constraints (rate limits, authentication, etc.) that would be important for production 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the purpose of each parameter beyond what's in the schema (e.g., '用于课程开发时收集参考资料' provides context for the query parameter, and the category parameter explanation gives practical use cases). However, it doesn't provide examples or edge case guidance that would elevate it to a 5.

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 a specific verb ('执行网页搜索' - perform web search) and resource ('搜索结果列表' - search results list). It distinguishes this general web search tool from the only sibling tool (get_server_info) by focusing on external content discovery rather than server information retrieval.

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 provides clear usage contexts with three specific examples (searching technical documentation/tutorials/blogs, collecting reference materials for course development, and supporting arbitrary keyword searches). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives for different types of searches beyond the category parameter.

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