web_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not specify whether the operation is read-only, what format results take, whether rate limits apply, or how it handles empty or malformed queries. The phrase 'relevant results' is vague and does not define the result structure.

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 a single concise sentence that leads with the verb and resource. There is no extraneous information, so it is efficient; however, the brevity also means it omits potentially useful usage context.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a minimal but functional summary. It does not explain the return value structure or any edge-case behavior, which an agent would need to correctly parse or handle results. It is adequate for basic invocation but incomplete for richer interaction.

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 both parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema states, such as how num_results affects pagination or result ordering. The baseline 3 applies because the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('web') with an outcome ('return relevant results'). It is distinct from siblings like database_query or read_file, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. The purpose is understandable but generic.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as database_query for structured data or get_user_info for user-specific information. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or when to prefer a different tool.

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