Web Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that search operators are passed through verbatim in `query`, but says nothing about rate limits, result freshness, or ranking behavior.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the operator table is compact and scannable. There is mild duplication with the schema's `query` description, which already names several operators, but the expanded syntax is worth the space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and count/need_content/ori_question are documented in the schema. The only real gap is routing versus web_fetch, which is a usage-guideline issue rather than missing operational detail.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description goes further by spelling out the full operator syntax (site:, -site:, lang:, after:/before:, exact-phrase, -keyword) with examples, which meaningfully enriches the `query` parameter beyond the schema's brief mention.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the web and return ranked results'), so an agent immediately knows the operation. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling web_fetch, so the agent must infer the boundary between searching and fetching a URL.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. With web_fetch as a sibling, the description should say something like 'use this to discover pages, then web_fetch to retrieve one', but it offers nothing beyond the bare purpose.

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