smart_web_search

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the provider cascade, free-tier quotas (100K/mo, 1000/mo, 2500 then paid), parallel vs serial routing, and the exact return shape. It omits auth requirements, latency expectations, and failure/fallback behavior when all providers are exhausted.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then provider detail, then return format, then the usage directive. It is dense but every clause carries routing, cost, or output information; the provider quota parentheticals are the only marginally extraneous part.

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 returned blocks (Title/URL/Snippet) and the JSON envelope. Combined with full schema coverage and the disclosed quota/routing behavior, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only auth and error handling are unaddressed.

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%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters, including output_format and intent routing. The description restates output_format=json behavior but adds no new parameter-level syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (web search) and goes further to name the five providers and their routing order, plus the return format. An agent knows exactly what this tool does and what it will get back without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Use this as the DEFAULT web search tool,' which is a clear when-to-use directive. There are no siblings, so no alternatives to exclude, but it also gives no when-not guidance (e.g. when a specialized search would be better).

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