search_on_web

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format and suggests using 'fetch_webpage' for detailed content, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving gaps for a web 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?

The description is appropriately sized with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's function, specifying the return format, and suggesting a follow-up action. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though the return format details could be more concise. Overall, it's efficient with little waste.

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 moderate complexity (web search with 2 parameters), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, output format, and integration with 'fetch_webpage,' but lacks details on parameter semantics and some behavioral aspects like error handling.

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, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'given query' which aligns with the 'query' parameter but doesn't explain the 'results' parameter or its default value of 10. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to adequately address the coverage gap.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Searches the web for information related to the given query,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'search_on_website,' which might search a specific website rather than the broader web. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'Use relevants links with `fetch_webpage` to get all the page content,' which suggests a workflow with a sibling tool. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_on_website' or general web search contexts. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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