Search the web with Grok Build

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing runtime behavior: it always runs with `--permission-mode plan --sandbox read-only` regardless of GROK_MCP_PERMISSION_CEILING, lacks permission/write/yolo arguments, and never passes `--disable-web-search`. This adds significant context not covered by the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four sentences, zero filler. Each sentence adds unique information: research purpose, prompt-only parameters, fixed read-only behavior, and special flag avoidance. Front-loaded with the primary verb. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

Given 9 parameters (with 100% schema coverage), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the tool's safety profile, parameter effects, and constraints without needing to detail outputs. No gaps that would confuse an agent selecting or invoking this tool.

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 the baseline is 3. However, the description adds value by clarifying that `numResults` and `searchDepth` only shape the prompt and have no CLI flags, and that `background` runs detached. It also explains `query` is the body of a web-search-shaped prompt. Not quite a 5 because it could weave in more hints about how `effort` and `model` interact with the CLI rejection logic, but still above baseline.

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 it researches a question using web search, with a specific verb ('research') and resource ('Grok Build's web search'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it never needs to write, which sets it apart from write-oriented tools like grok or review.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it always runs read-only with a fixed permission mode, never passes `--disable-web-search`, and explains that `numResults` and `searchDepth` only shape the prompt. It also indirectly suggests when not to use this tool (if write access or a different permission mode is needed), complementing the sibling context.

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