web_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the FIRECRAWL_API_KEY requirement and explains what category and time_filter do. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, potential rate limits, or what happens on missing/invalid keys. This is a moderate gap for a tool with zero annotations.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the API key requirement plus category/time_filter semantics fit in minimal space. Every sentence earns its place.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to make a basic call: it knows a query is required and can optionally narrow by category or time range. It misses minor details like the nature of the return results, but the default limit and self-explanatory query make it adequately complete.

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. It adds real meaning to the cryptic enum values: category 'can target GitHub/research/PDF/developer sources' and time_filter 'limits results to the past hour/day/week/month/year.' Query and limit are not described, but they are self-explanatory and have clear schema defaults.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Search the public web through Firecrawl.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like web_fetch, web_crawl, and web_extract, which all imply different operations. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 helpful context on optional parameters (category and time_filter) but never explicitly states when to use web_search versus its siblings. An agent can infer from the tool name and sibling names, but there is no direct guidance such as 'use this instead of web_fetch when...'.

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