web_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool uses scraping techniques with automatic fallback between engines, which is useful behavioral info. However, it does not discuss limitations like potential blocking, rate limits, or result variability, which would be needed for full transparency.

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 concise with a clear purpose statement followed by structured Args. It is front-loaded and every line earns its place, but the format could be slightly more polished (e.g., using standard sections).

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 presence of an output schema (so return values are covered), the description adequately covers input parameters and engine choices. It omits edge cases, error handling, or performance notes, but remains largely complete for a search tool with simple parameters.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter (query, engine with options, limit with max). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema properties, though 'auto' engine selection is not further detailed.

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 the tool searches the web using specific engines (DuckDuckGo, Mojeek, auto-fallback), which is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like web_fetch (which fetches a single URL) and workspace_search (which searches local files).

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 this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or recommend specific scenarios, leaving the agent without decision context.

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