human_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: per-engine persistent profiles, configured fallback order, CAPTCHA/bot-wall failover, a headed sign-in window opened on the server machine, and cookie persistence across searches. These are non-obvious side effects and failure modes an agent could not infer from the 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and mechanism, and every sentence conveys operative detail (engines, failover, persistence, return shape, sibling routing). It is dense and the long middle sentence is heavy, but nothing is 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 a two-parameter tool with an output schema already present, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: engine set, fallback semantics, CAPTCHA handling path, state persistence, and a pointer to the status sibling. No material gap remains.

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% – both 'query' and 'maxResults' (with its 1-50 range and default of 15) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Search the web the way a person does') and immediately names the mechanism (real browser driving Google, DuckDuckGo, Bing, Baidu, Sogou in a persistent profile). It is clearly distinguishable from human_search_status and human_search_sign_in, which it names explicitly.

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?

Explicitly routes to human_search_status for engine health and to human_search_sign_in for the CAPTCHA sign-in flow, and describes the fallback-order context that governs when this tool is used. It stops short of stating when *not* to use it (e.g., vs. a lightweight/headless search), so it is strong but not fully exclusionary.

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