Prismfy 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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states the return fields and does not disclose side effects, rate limits, read-only nature, pagination, or any other behavioral traits. An agent cannot tell whether this is a stateless query or if it has implications for quotas or costs. The minimal mention of 'request metadata' hints at some response detail but is not substantive.

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 a single short sentence with no filler, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified, missing crucial information about parameters, usage, and behavior. It front-loads the core action but sacrifices necessary detail. It is neither verbose nor well-structured enough to be considered appropriately sized.

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 tool with six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It provides only the high-level purpose and a list of return fields, omitting any guidance on parameter semantics, usage constraints, or edge cases. An agent would struggle to craft a correct request without additional information, especially for parameters like 'engines' or 'timeRange'.

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 schema provides no semantic meaning for parameters. The description does not explain any of the six parameters (query, page, domain, engines, language, timeRange). It does not hint at what 'engines' might be, what formats or values are expected for 'timeRange', or how 'page' pagination works. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation, leaving the agent to guess.

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 ('Search') and resource ('the web through Prismfy'), and explicitly enumerates what it returns (titles, URLs, snippets, source engines, request metadata). This distinguishes it from the sibling prismfy_quota, which is clearly about quota management. It could be slightly more explicit about the tool's role relative to other search options, but it is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling prismfy_quota, nor does it specify any prerequisites, limitations, or contexts where a different tool would be preferred. The agent must infer the appropriate use case solely from the name and generic phrase 'Search the web.'

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