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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return format and the engine='auto' fallback behavior, but it omits important operational details such as rate limits, timeout behavior, authentication needs, and error handling.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the return format and default engine behavior.

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?

Although an output schema exists and reduces the need to explain return values, the tool has seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations. The description covers purpose and one parameter but is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently across all parameters.

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 for seven parameters. It only explains engine='auto'; it leaves lang, region, recency, timeout, and max_results undocumented, including formats and expected value types.

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 a specific verb and resource: "Search the web." It also indicates the return shape (numbered list plus structured results). It does not distinguish the tool from its siblings web_fetch and web_diagnose, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies usage by naming engine='auto' and the configured fallback chain, which helps an agent understand the default engine behavior. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of web_fetch or web_diagnose, and it provides no exclusions or prerequisites.

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