Search design references

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

The description conveys that this is a read-only operation that is safe and idempotent. It adds the useful behavioral note that it searches the web, not a local database, and that it returns web results rather than being limited to visual output. It doesn't cover what happens with image search, but for a read query this is reasonable and exceeds the annotations alone.

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 only two sentences, but those two sentences contain actionable guidance. The first sentence states what it does, and the second highlights when to use it over an alternative. This is efficient and well-structured.

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?

For a read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value types and the when-to-use scenario. It doesn't mention pagination or result limits, but those are available in the schema. The sibling tools are not referenced to direct the agent toward or away from them, which would be a minor 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, including examples for query and valid sites. The description field in the schema provides good context, so the main description isn't burdened with parameter details. However, the description does reference the general purpose and output type, which gives the agent a high-level expectation of what the parameters accomplish. Given full schema coverage, this is a solid 3.

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 verb ('web search scoped to design platforms') and the return types (article titles, snippets, links). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from the two sibling search tools, but the scoping gives useful context. The examples in the schema parameters provide additional clarity.

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 gives a when-to-use comparison against image search, which is a clear alternative. It fails to mention when image search might be better, but it does name one specific use case where this tool excels (case studies, write-ups, documentation), giving the agent a practical rule.

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