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. It discloses that the tool uses a real browser and lists configurable backends, but it does not mention side effects, rate limits, required setup, or what 'return results' entails. This gives some context but leaves significant behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose is stated first, followed by useful parameter details in a scannable list. Every sentence contributes new information, and there is no fluff or repetition of the schema.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, so return structure is likely covered elsewhere. However, the description lacks guidance on when to use the tool, how max_results works, or any prerequisites like browser setup. It is complete enough for a straightforward search tool but misses key context.

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 must compensate. It explicitly explains the browser and engine parameters, but completely omits query and max_results. The description adds value for two of four parameters, leaving the remaining parameters to be inferred from the schema alone.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Search the web via a real browser and return results.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like fetch_page and setup_camoufox. The browser and engine options further sharpen its scope.

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?

Usage context is implied through the description of browser and engine options, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving room for ambiguity.

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