web_search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds beyond that by stating 'Does not crawl; it finds the URLs to look at,' which clarifies its limited scope. No contradiction with 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 four sentences with clear front-loading: purpose, use cases, configuration, and limitation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return format (compact ranked list of title, url, snippet). It covers main usage, configuration, and limitations. Could mention rate limits or error handling but overall 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds context by explaining the default count (5) and provider configuration (Tavily/Brave/DuckDuckGo) beyond the schema's 'Override provider' note.

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 'Search the web for current information' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like `browser` (which fetches/verifies) by mentioning 'Does not crawl; it finds the URLs to look at.'

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 explicitly lists use cases: 'finding docs, error messages, library/version facts, or current events — anything outside the indexed repo.' It also mentions integration with `web` or `browser` tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide exclusions.

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