Research

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It mentions searching and crawling but does not explain the nature of the 'grounded answer prompt,' limits, or authentication requirements. The behavioral description is minimal and leaves important aspects unclear.

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 only two sentences and contains no fluff. The first sentence defines the tool's action, and the second explains the input. Every word serves a purpose, achieving maximal conciseness.

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?

With one parameter and an output schema available (from context), the description covers input adequately but is vague on output. It mentions a 'grounded answer prompt' without clarifying format or structure. For a simple tool, this is minimally viable but lacks completeness.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by stating the only parameter is 'query' and advising to pass the user's question as-is. This goes beyond the bare schema and provides functional guidance. It could be improved by specifying expected input format or constraints.

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 searches the web, crawls pages, and returns a grounded answer. It specifies the verb and resource, making the function unmistakable. No sibling tools exist, so no differentiation is needed.

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 instructs to 'pass the user's question as-is,' providing explicit usage guidance. Since there are no sibling tools, it does not need to exclude alternatives. The guidance is clear, but no context about when not to use is provided, missing a slight opportunity for completeness.

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