web_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the return format (dictionary with title, url, snippet) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, authentication, or side effects. The return description is redundant given the output schema.

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 structured with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by concise parameter definitions and a one-line return description. Every line serves a purpose and there is no fluff.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameters. However, it lacks any explicit guidance on selecting this tool over web_fetch or any operational caveats, making it slightly incomplete.

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?

The input schema lacks descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's Args section adds necessary meaning. It clearly defines query and max_results, including the default for max_results, providing full semantic clarity for both parameters.

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 it performs a web search using Ollama's hosted search API, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from web_fetch, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 web_search versus web_fetch, and no mention of scenarios or exclusions. It simply restates the tool's function without actionable usage context.

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