web.brief

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the composition of the result (ranking + provenance + coverage + notes) plus the single-invocation aggregation behavior, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about side effects, permissions, latency or how urls/top affect the aggregation, so mutation and safety profile remain unknown.

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 short clauses, outcome first and usage constraint second, with zero filler. The density comes at the cost of some opacity (the repaired/rendered/fromCache triple is unpacked but 'zwinięty brief' and 'coverage' are left as jargon).

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 read-style aggregator with no output schema, the description does outline the returned sections, which is the most important missing piece. But with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, three undocumented parameters and no statement of side effects remain significant holes for correct invocation.

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% across three parameters (query, top, urls), and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all — no mention of what 'top' caps, whether 'urls' restricts the candidate set, or the query's role. The agent must infer everything from bare type declarations.

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 names a concrete outcome vocabulary: a condensed brief bundling ranking, provenance flags (repaired/rendered/fromCache), coverage and notes, produced in a single call. That is specific enough to distinguish it from web.search (raw results) and web.drift_report (diagnostics), though 'brief' itself is never defined and there is no title to anchor it.

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?

'Do raportów' states the intended use case and 'nie do debugu' explicitly excludes the debugging scenario, which usefully routes the agent away from web.trace/web.eval. It stops short of naming the alternative sibling to call instead, so it misses the top band.

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