search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the provider, that no API key is required, and the return fields, but it omits rate limits, result freshness/ranking behavior, pagination, and error conditions.

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 short and front-loaded, stating the core action first and then the return shape. Every sentence is relevant, though it spends more space on return fields than on invocation semantics.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the return-field explanation is useful and the provider/auth note adds context. However, the missing parameter semantics and lack of usage guidance leave gaps an agent must infer.

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 does not explain the 'query' parameter or the optional 'limit' parameter, including default behavior or maximum values. Only 'query' is weakly implied by 'Search the web'.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search the web') and identifies the backend ('Agent Reach / Exa semantic search'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling fetch_content.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus fetch_content or other alternatives. The description gives context but no exclusions, prerequisites, or decision criteria.

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