Safe Search Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing the pipeline stages (L0 to L2), redirect resolution, and the injection-detection failure condition. It also specifies the return format, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'search the web' claim.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise pipeline summary and return details. No redundant filler exists; each sentence contributes useful information.

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 output schema exists and the description explains the safety pipeline, failure behavior, return format, and suggested follow-up tool, it is largely complete for an agent to invoke correctly. It could go further on query constraints or authentication expectations, but those are secondary.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both query and num_results. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool searches the web and returns sanitized text plus source URLs. It also differentiates itself by noting that full content retrieval is delegated to quarantine_fetch, distinguishing it from related fetch/search siblings.

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 the primary use case: safe web search with sanitized output. It also gives guidance that follow-up full-content retrieval should use quarantine_fetch, though it does not explicitly contrast this tool with all alternatives like safe_fetch_tool or quarantine_search_tool.

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