web_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention the return fields (unified status/error_detail, session_id, answer content) and optional Tavily evidence, which gives some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication needs, or how the Grok model interacts with the search. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then briefly noting the return format. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema information. This is an ideal length for a tool description.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values in detail—it even goes a bit beyond by mentioning them. However, the description is incomplete in terms of usage context: it lacks when-to-use guidance, what distinguishes it from sibling tools, and how the optional Tavily evidence and extra_sources parameter affect behavior. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 already provides descriptions for all 4 parameters, with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters themselves, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The schema handles parameter semantics entirely.

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 function: 'Research the web with Grok and optionally use structured Tavily evidence.' This specifies a distinct verb (research) and resource (web with Grok), which is more specific than a generic 'search'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like web_fetch or get_sources, so it misses the top score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools such as web_fetch or get_sources. The only implied guidance is that it is for 'research,' but that is too vague to be actionable.

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