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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions the technologies (DuckDuckGo and Playwright) but doesn't describe key behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens when 'deep' mode is enabled (e.g., timeouts or content extraction limits). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with a single, clear sentence: 'Busca en internet usando DuckDuckGo y Playwright.' There is no wasted text or redundancy, making it easy to understand the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, target, and implementation details.

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 that there's an output schema (not shown but indicated in context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and sibling tools present, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral context, and differentiation from siblings. It's adequate as a starting point but has clear gaps that could hinder effective tool selection and invocation.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameters (query, max_results, deep, language), and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps. However, it doesn't provide additional context like examples or constraints beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'Busca en internet usando DuckDuckGo y Playwright' (Search the internet using DuckDuckGo and Playwright). It specifies the action (search) and the resource (internet), and mentions the specific technologies used. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this web search tool from its siblings like memory_* tools or code execution tools, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect 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. It doesn't mention any specific scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. While the context signals show sibling tools exist (like memory_* tools for data storage/retrieval and run_* tools for code execution), the description offers no comparison or decision criteria for choosing web_search over them.

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