web_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It reveals that the lookup is delegated to an external CLI with Gemini web access, implying web freshness. However, it does not disclose potential latency, failure modes, or output format, which would be useful for a tool that depends on an external service.

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, front-loaded with the core action and examples, followed by a clear usage trigger. Every sentence serves a purpose with no filler or repetition.

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 relatively simple lookup tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what, when, and the underlying mechanism (external CLI with web access). It is slightly incomplete in not hinting at what the response looks like, but this is not critical for a lookup 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only lists example query topics. The schema already documents query, cwd, and model, so the description adds marginal value for parameters.

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 identifies the tool's function: 'Delegate a web/documentation lookup to the Antigravity CLI (Gemini with web access).' It lists specific use cases (library docs, API references, error messages, current versions) and distinguishes it from local-analysis siblings like analyze_files and deep_search.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'USE THIS when you need information you don't have or that may be newer than your training data.' This is clear guidance, though it does not mention exclusions or directly compare to sibling tools like deep_search.

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