web_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search engine (DuckDuckGo) and return format, but lacks critical information about rate limits, authentication needs, privacy implications, or whether results are cached. For a web search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with just two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. Every word earns its place - first sentence defines the action and tool, second sentence specifies the return format. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a web search tool with 2 parameters (100% schema coverage) but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and return format. However, it lacks important context about limitations, reliability, or integration specifics that would help an agent use it effectively. The minimal description is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as query formatting examples or result quality considerations. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Search the web') and resource ('using DuckDuckGo'), with specific output details ('Returns titles, URLs, and snippets'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on web search rather than bug tracking or user stories. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential alternative search tools.

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, nor any context about prerequisites or limitations. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate use cases or constraints.

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