recommend_tools

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the tool's behavior well: it ranks providers based on measured benchmarks, returns executable routes, numbers, and caveats. There is no mention of side effects, but as a recommendation tool, destructive actions are unlikely. The description is transparent about inputs and outputs.

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 two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the first states what the tool does and how it works, the second states what it returns and when to use it. No superfluous information, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, usage, and return types. It could be more specific about the output structure, but 'executable routes, numbers, and honest caveats' gives adequate guidance. The absence of output schema does not leave critical gaps.

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% and each parameter has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds little beyond the schema for parameter meanings, but it provides overall context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly augment parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Recommend') and resource ('web-access providers'), explicitly states the ranking criteria (measured benchmarks), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on provider comparison for a given job.

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 includes 'Use when deciding which search/scraping/crawling/extraction/browser API to use', providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly contrast with sibling tools, though the sibling names imply different purposes.

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