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 so well: it discloses the internal pipeline (plan → propose → resolve → falsify → SERP → learn), that HTTP verification repairs via redirect/Wayback, and that browser rendering kicks in automatically below a text threshold. It omits cost/latency, rate limits, and whether external network calls leave the 'closed ecosystem', which keeps it below a 5.

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?

A single dense block that front-loads internal pipeline stage names and arrow notation before stating the actual purpose and return shape. The pipeline enumeration is jargon that only partly earns its place for an agent selecting a tool, though nothing is truly redundant.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully compensates on the return side ('ranked + provenance + ślad decyzji'). However, it leaves sibling disambiguation, the undocumented 'staleness' parameter, and any cost/latency expectations 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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter (including the serp escape hatch and render policy). The description adds only the renderMinText threshold concept, which is not itself a parameter; the enum-only 'staleness' param remains undocumented anywhere.

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 and resource ('szukaj' / search) and adds scope ('w zamkniętym ekosystemie') plus what the output contains ('ranked + provenance + ślad decyzji'). It never names or contrasts a sibling tool (web.brief, web.verify_links, web.render), so an agent cannot tell from this text alone which sibling to pick.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance relative to the twelve siblings. The only conditional language concerns internal mechanics ('renderuje przeglądarka (auto), gdy treść < renderMinText') and a SERP escape hatch, which explains behavior, not tool selection.

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