search_on_website

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 mentions the return format and suggests using 'fetch_webpage' for full content, which adds some context. However, it lacks critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's insufficient for a tool with behavioral implications.

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 relatively concise but could be more front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, but the return format details and reference to 'fetch_webpage' might be better structured. It's not overly verbose, but some sentences (like the return format example) could be streamlined for efficiency.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at usage, but gaps remain in parameter explanations and behavioral details. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description's focus on format is somewhat redundant, but overall it's minimally adequate with clear room for improvement.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'query' and 'sites' implicitly but doesn't explain their semantics (e.g., what 'sites' expects as input format). It omits the 'results' parameter entirely. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap 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 the tool's purpose: 'Searches the web for information related to the given query, restricted to specific sites.' This specifies the verb ('searches'), resource ('web'), and key constraint ('restricted to specific sites'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'search_on_web', which likely performs broader web searches without site restrictions.

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 context by mentioning site restrictions and referencing 'fetch_webpage' for detailed content, suggesting this tool is for initial search results. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus 'search_on_web' (e.g., for site-specific vs. general web searches) or provide clear alternatives or exclusions.

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