Web Search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses that no API key is required, that results include title/URL/snippet, that the region parameter affects result localization, and that fetchWebContent should be used for full page content. This gives an agent a realistic picture of behavior and output.

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 well-structured with a use-case block and important notes. It is concise, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence provides useful operational detail without unnecessary filler.

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 straightforward search tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: engine, auth requirements, result contents, region behavior, result limits, and the natural next step to fetch full content. No critical operational gap is apparent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal new meaning: it repeats the region example and reinforces maxResults behavior, but does not substantially extend the schema's parameter documentation. Baseline 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 states a specific action ('Search the web using DuckDuckGo') and clearly identifies what the tool does. It also names the intended use cases ('current information, news, documentation, or answers'), making the purpose unambiguous and easy to distinguish from the sibling fetchWebContent.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool and gives a clear follow-up action: use fetchWebContent after getting results. It stops short of explicitly saying when NOT to use this tool versus fetchWebContent, so it misses the top-tier score, but the guidance is otherwise clear.

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