web_search

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral transparency. It only states it searches the web, without disclosing any potential side effects, limitations, required permissions, or data handling. For a read-only tool, this is a notable gap.

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 direct, with a clear parameter list and a helpful example. It is slightly redundant with the schema's parameter list, but the structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no nested objects), the description is adequate but lacks detail on output format or potential variations in results. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for describing return values, but more context on search behavior would be beneficial.

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 schema provides no description for the 'query' parameter (coverage=0%), but the description adds minimal value by labeling it as 'the search query' and showing usage in an example. However, it does not specify query formatting, length limits, or special characters.

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 indicates the tool performs web searches for a given query, with a verb (Search) and resource (the web). It is distinguishable from the chess-related sibling tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from potential other search tools.

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 for information retrieval via example, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. No cautionary notes about scope or limitations are provided.

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