web_search

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals caching for a day, pagination behavior, snippet behavior, and the anti-detect browser mechanism—real operational context beyond the schema. It does not clarify max_results behavior, but the core behavioral profile is transparent.

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?

Every line adds distinct value: engine, output shape, parameter effects, cache, then when/not-when routing. It is telegraphic but scannable and free of filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to restate return values, and it covers usage conditions, alternatives, and caching. The only missing piece is max_results semantics, which keeps this 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?

Input schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters; it does for pages (pagination → more unique URLs) and include_snippets (snippet under URL). However, max_results is never described, and the relationship between max_results and pages is ambiguous, leaving a notable gap.

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?

States an explicit search action against DuckDuckGo via an anti-detect browser and the returned fields (rank/title/URL). It differentiates itself from research/paper_search by naming its scope, so an agent can distinguish 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?

Provides explicit WHEN and NOT WHEN conditions, including concrete alternatives ('research / research_start' for ≥10-site hunts, 'paper_search' for scientific articles). This is direct routing guidance, leaving little to inference.

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