alterlab_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses multi-engine failover, cost per query ($0.001), cost for scraping each page, and equivalent operators. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but still offers good transparency for a search tool.

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?

Single paragraph, front-loaded with core purpose, then engine details and cost, followed by optional parameters. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or unnecessary words.

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?

Covers main functionality, engine, cost, and key parameters. However, with no output schema, it falls short on describing the exact return structure (e.g., JSON format of SERP results) and how formats/extraction_schema interplay with scrape_results. Slightly incomplete for a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context for domain, time_range, and scrape_results (cost implications) but does not significantly enhance understanding of query, num_results, page, country, language, or extraction_schema beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Execute a web search and return SERP results (URLs, titles, snippets)' with details on the engine and billing. It distinguishes from sibling tools like alterlab_scrape (scraping a specific URL) and alterlab_crawl (crawling) by focusing on search functionality.

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?

Provides guidance on when to set scrape_results, use domain (equivalent to site: operator), and time_range for recency. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over siblings like alterlab_scrape or alterlab_extract, though the context is implied.

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