web_search

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 does this well: it reveals hidden backend rotation, keyless access, automatic failover, availability rationale, and the exact result fields returned (titles, URLs, snippets) and backend reporting.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then reliability behavior, then return shape. It is tight, front-loaded, and free of filler or redundant restatement.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the return format, and the key hidden behavior. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 already documents both parameters, including the default and max for numResults, so coverage is complete. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline.

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 opens with a direct verb and resource: 'Search the web.' It immediately clarifies what the tool does, and then adds what results contain (titles, URLs, snippets). With no sibling tools to distinguish from, this is a complete purpose statement.

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?

There are no sibling tools or explicit alternatives to compare against, and the description does not state exactly when to prefer this tool. However, 'Search the web' implies general web-search use cases, and the failover/availability note adds context that it can be used across providers. This is adequate but not explicit.

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