web_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without mentioning important aspects like result format, rate limits, authentication, or internet dependency. This leaves the agent without critical behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. It gets straight to the point and every word serves a 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?

The tool is simple, but with no annotations and no usage context, the description is minimal. It defines the core action but omits any guidance on when to use it or what to expect behaviorally. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but other context is thin.

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?

With 0% schema_description_coverage, the description needed to enrich the parameter meaning. However, it merely says 'given query', which only restates the parameter name and adds no additional semantics like expected format or search options. It fails to compensate for the sparse schema.

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's function with a specific verb 'Search' and resource 'the web', and specifies the input as 'given query'. It inherently distinguishes itself from the unrelated sibling tools roll_dice and check_holiday.

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 implies when to use this tool: when web information is needed for a query. Although it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the sibling tools are so different that the usage context is clear. It lacks explicit guidance on preferences or limitations.

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