web-search

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape (source URLs, snippets, clean results), which is useful, but says nothing about read-only nature, rate limits, latency, or reliance on live external sources beyond the word 'live'. Adequate but thin for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the required-use trigger and the covered categories are front-loaded before the return-format note. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by describing the return (source URLs, snippets, results), and the input parameters are fully covered by the schema. The main gap is the absence of any reliability or freshness caveat around 'live' results.

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%, with both 'query' and 'max_results' (default 10, max 25) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or query-construction guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('live-web search') and enumerates the information types it covers (benchmark scores, specifications, prices, news, documentation, comparisons), which implicitly separates it from the specialized siblings like image-search, finance, weather, and sports. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the general-purpose factual scope is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition — use for 'current or externally verifiable information' — with 'REQUIRED' emphasizing the mandate. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when-not to use it, but the freshness criteria is concrete enough to route most cases correctly.

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