web_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of describing behavior. It discloses the search engine, result shape, and the need to fetch full text separately, but it does not mention rate limits, pagination behavior, or failure modes. This is adequate but not richly 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?

Three short sentences front-load the purpose, then define the output, then give follow-up guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 simple read-only search tool, the description covers core invocation, output shape, and the natural next step. However, missing parameter semantics and a lack of caveats about limitations leave minor but real gaps for an agent relying only on this text.

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 0%, and the description adds no per-parameter meaning. The query parameter is inferable, but the region format (e.g., 'wt-wt') and the exact effect of max_results are left undefined.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Search the web with DuckDuckGo.' It also defines the output as a list of results with title, url and snippet, clearly distinguishing it as a search tool rather than a generic HTTP fetcher.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to 'Follow up with fetch_url on any result whose full text you need,' which provides a clear condition for using a sibling tool. However, it does not mention when to prefer http_request or provide exclusions for web_search, so it stops short of full coverage.

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