Search the web with Scrapyard

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) cover the read-only and open-world nature, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: it discloses that the response retains `engine_used`, `adapter_used`, and `cached` flags, enabling the agent to report provenance and caching behavior. It also explicitly states a limitation (does not extract page bodies). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage guidance with response metadata, and a limitation. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. No filler or redundancy.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema (which obviates the need to detail return values), and the thorough schema descriptions, the description covers all necessary context: when to use, how it behaves, what metadata it returns, and what it does not do. An agent has everything needed to invoke correctly.

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%, so every parameter is already fully explained in the schema (e.g., 'type' enum, 'limit' range, 'query' natural-language advice, 'engine' fallback chain). The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Search'), a resource ('the live web or news index'), and the output ('ranked URLs, titles, and snippets'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like scrapyard_extract and scrapyard_map by focusing on web/news search rather than extraction or mapping. No ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Prefer this before extraction when you do not already know the target URL.' It also names the alternative (extraction) and provides exclusion guidance ('This tool does not extract page bodies.'). This leaves no inference needed for an agent to decide whether to call search or reactive siblings.

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