search_ro_web

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 explains the two-step process (wiki lookup + optional Brave Search based on BRAVE_API_KEY presence) and notes that each result indicates server, era, and Tenarius applicability. This gives an agent useful expectations about result richness and conditional behavior, going beyond a simple 'search' stub.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, numbered process steps, a note about result metadata, and an Args list. Every element earns its place, and the front-loaded purpose ensures quick understanding. It uses appropriate formatting for an LLM to parse easily.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 simple parameters, output schema provided, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers scope, sources, conditional behavior, and parameters. It does not discuss potential external dependencies (e.g., network availability, API rate limits) or the exact output structure, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the latter. A small gap remains in not specifying when to prefer this over sibling tools.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by defining both parameters: 'query: Tema a investigar' (topic to investigate) and 'limit: Límite para búsqueda web Brave (1-10)' (limit for Brave search, with range). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, especially for 'limit', clarifying its purpose and allowed values.

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 states a specific action ('Búsqueda web amplia' - broad web search) with a clear resource scope (Ragnarok Online, Pre-Renewal / Ep. ≤ 13.2) and explicitly lists the sources consulted (iRO Wiki, Fandom, optional Brave Search). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_wiki or search_ro_reference, which target specific repositories.

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 provides clear context: this is a broad web search tool that consults multiple external sources, contrasting with more focused sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or provide exclusions (e.g., 'use search_wiki for wiki-specific queries'). The label 'amplia' implies suitability for broad, cross-source queries, which is helpful but not explicit.

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