vc_web_search

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: authentication options (free-trial/prepaid X-Vibes-Key, USDC via x402), side effects (outbound HTTP, no local writes), and return behavior (JSON results or payment_required challenge). This goes beyond what annotations offer.

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 5 sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, usage guidance, sibling, auth, side effects, returns. It is fairly concise, though could be slightly more streamlined. Overall well-structured.

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 (public web search, payment, multiple auth methods, output schema exists), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage, auth, side effects, and return types. No obvious gaps remain.

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 descriptions cover all 3 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the schema (e.g., query is a search string, max_results default 5, payment_signature optional). 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 'Run a public web search and return titles, URLs, and snippets as JSON.' It specifies the verb, resource, and output format. It distinguishes from sibling vc_page_markdown by noting that vc_web_search is for public web results, not private pages.

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 states when to use ('when you need current public web results for a query') and when not to use ('Do not use for private/intranet pages') with a direct alternative ('call vc_page_markdown with a known URL instead'). It also names the sibling tool.

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