search_web

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses important traits: SEO content farms bias results, consensus is weak evidence, queries return a slice of the web, and depth affects credit cost. It does not mention rate limits or output ordering, but the core behavioral profile is well covered.

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 efficiently organized: a one-sentence purpose, a brief but valuable caveat block, and a labeled parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important usage warning is front-loaded before parameter 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 the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, but a rich description and an output schema, the description covers most essentials: purpose, limitations, alternative tools, and parameter semantics. The only notable gap is the undocumented limit parametercase, which holds it back from a perfect score.

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 provides critical meaning for parameters. It explains question, queries with usage advice, domains/exclude_domains, since with a format, and depth with credit implications. However, it omits the limit parameter entirely, which appears only in the schema with a default value.

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 concrete verb-resource phrase: 'Search the general web for published claims, articles and documentation.' It clearly establishes the tool as the CONSENSUS layer, contrasting web consensus with truthijd and distinguishing it from other search tools. The mention of corroborating with search_community or structured sources further differentiates it from siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for published claims and consensus) and when not to rely on it alone, recommending search_community or structured sources for load-bearing information. It also advises supplying multiple queries for broad questions and using advanced depth sparingly, though it stops short of a comprehensive when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use list.

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