search

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that searches are orchestrated via Grok as primary and Tavily/AnySearch/Firecrawl as supplements, offering a useful behind-the-scenes behavior. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or if any authentication/rate limits apply, though search is typically non-destructive.

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 entire description is one concise sentence with no filler. It directly communicates the tool's purpose and orchestration behavior, earning every word.

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 the 8-parameter complexity and lack of parameter description, a single sentence is insufficient. The description does not cover key usage aspects like acceptable values, relationships between parameters, or filtering behavior, though the output schema covers return shape.

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%, and the description fails to elaborate on any of the 8 parameters. It does not explain how 'mode', 'depth', 'fresh', or domain filters should be used, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names and enums. This is a significant gap for proper tool invocation.

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 'Orchestrated web search' which clearly identifies the tool's function—performing web searches using multiple providers. It distinguishes from siblings ('health' and 'fetch') by being a search operation rather than health check or URL fetcher.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies web search use, leaving the agent to infer that 'fetch' would be for retrieving specific URLs. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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