web_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the real-Firefox backend, consensus-based engine aggregation, snippet availability, pagination behavior, and that external text is treated as DATA. It still omits rate limits, authentication needs, and a clear read-only/mutation declaration, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 short, front-loaded, and clearly ordered: purpose first, then WHEN/NOT WHEN, then behavioral details. Every sentence adds useful information with no 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?

Given an output schema exists, return values need not be described. The definition covers purpose, usage routing, pagination behavior, and data handling, but it leaves `max_results` undocumented and does not address operational constraints for a no-annotation tool.

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% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains `pages` as a pagination control that continues while new links appear, but never explains `max_results`, and `query` gets no meaning beyond the parameter name itself.

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: web search using real Firefox. It distinguishes itself from the sibling fetch_page by naming it as the tool for a different need, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance with a WHEN clause for fresh topical links and a NOT WHEN clause pointing to fetch_page for the text of a specific page. The alternative is named directly, 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.