DeepSeek Web Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds real value: it explains the meaning and thresholds of returned rerank_score and authority fields, and warns that need_content=true produces a larger response (up to 8000 chars per result per schema). No auth, rate-limit, or pagination behavior is discussed.

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?

Purpose and return semantics are front-loaded, and each block (scoring, syntax, content toggle) is distinct and useful. The operator grammar list is dense but earns its place as it cannot be inferred from the tool name alone.

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 no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of explaining the result fields and their scoring, and it covers the cost tradeoff of need_content. The main gap is relationship to the sibling deepseek_fetch and any pagination/result-cap behavior for a 1–50 count range.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by spelling out operator semantics (site:/‑site:, lang:zh,en, after:YYYY vs after:YYYY-MM-DD, phrase exclusion) and giving concrete interpretation thresholds for the score fields. It does not address the localization parameter, which the schema itself flags as consent-sensitive.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb (web search) and resource, and immediately describes the output shape (ranked results with quality signals). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling deepseek_fetch, though 'search' vs 'fetch' is inherently separable.

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?

Usage guidance is limited to parameter-level advice ('by default returns summaries only; set need_content=true...'), with no statement of when to choose this tool over deepseek_fetch (e.g., fetch a known URL vs discover URLs). The query operator list is more syntax help than tool-selection guidance.

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