Web Search

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at 'task-type routing' and 'fallback chain' but does not explain what these entail, what side effects exist, or how failures are handled. No mention of rate limits, auth, or what gets modified (it appears read-only, but not stated). It is not contradictory, but severely under-informs.

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 a single sentence, but it is dense with jargon ('unified provider search', 'task-type routing', 'fallback chain') without unpacking them. It is not concise in the sense of efficiently conveying information; it is vague and doesn't front-load the most critical info (what the query is for).

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 10 parameters, 4 enums, and no output schema or annotations, this description is drastically incomplete. The agent lacks critical information about how to construct a query, what each enum value means, what the response format is, and how routing and fallback affect results. A tool with this complexity requires far more detail to be usable.

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 only 30%, meaning 7 of 10 parameters lack descriptions. The tool description does not compensate by explaining any parameter meanings, defaults, or relationships. An agent has to infer from names like 'query', 'region', 'priority', etc., which may be ambiguous. The description adds zero value for parameter understanding.

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 general operation: 'Unified provider search' indicates a search over providers, with routing, fallback, and suggestions. It is not a tautology, but it lacks specificity about what is being searched or what 'provider' means. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like infobroker_corroborate or infobroker_kb, which could also involve search-like behavior.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. An agent has no information about when to choose infobroker_web_search over infobroker_fetch_page or infobroker_corroborate.

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