web_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It transparently reveals that the tool delegates to the Antigravity CLI with web access, implying an external network callfox. It doesn't mention side effects or errors, but for a lookup tool it's adequate. It avoids contradicting any annotations since none exist.

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?

The description is two sentences, with the first sentence stating the purpose and the second giving a clear condition for use. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool does times, what kinds of information it can retrieve, and when to use it. However, it doesn't mention any output format or limitations, which would be helpful but not critical for such a 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?

The schema already describes the parameters clearly (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by listing example content for the query (library docs, API references, etc.), enriching the semantics of the 'query' parameter beyond the schema's generic description. Thus, a 4 is warranted.

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 specifies a web/documentation lookup delegation to the Antigravity CLI, listing concrete use cases like library docs, API references, and error messages. This distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on external information retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 states 'USE THIS when you need information you don't have or that may be newer than your training data.' This gives a clear condition for use, effectively guiding the agent on when to select this tool.

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