safe_search_tool

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

The description details the safety pipeline (L0 through L2), including injection detection that causes failure. It also explains the return format (sanitized text + source URLs) and suggests follow-up actions. This is comprehensive without annotations.

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 five sentences, each adding value. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains the pipeline and output, and ends with a usage hint. No superfluous content.

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 complexity (safety pipeline, injection detection) and the existence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It could mention error handling for injection failures, but overall it provides sufficient context.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (query and num_results). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 tool name and description clearly state it performs web search with safety features. It distinguishes itself from siblings like quarantine_search_tool by specifying web search and returning sanitized text with source URLs.

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 suggests a workflow: search then use quarantine_fetch for full content. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or contrast it with all siblings, but provides enough context for typical use.

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