quick_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the search is 'quick' and returns 'raw' results, which adds some behavioral context beyond the basic function. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'raw' specifically entails (e.g., format, source limitations).

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and key behavioral trait ('without deep analysis'), and the Args section efficiently documents parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, basic behavior, and parameters. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values, but it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., speed, source reliability) to be fully comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'query' is explained as 'What to search for', and 'max_results' includes a default value (5) not explicitly stated in the schema. This goes beyond the schema's basic titles, though it could provide more detail on constraints (e.g., query length, max_results range).

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 performs a 'quick web search' and 'returns raw search results', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'research' or 'analyze' that might also involve searching, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 usage through the phrase 'without deep analysis', suggesting this is for basic searches rather than comprehensive research. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'research' or 'analyze', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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