search_web

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states that results are aggregated, but does not disclose how results are merged/deduplicated, whether providers are queried concurrently, rate limits, caching, or any side effects. For a read-only search tool, this is a significant gap given the lack of annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core function and provider scope, making it immediately scannable. There is no redundant phrasing.

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 9 parameters, a large sibling set, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits return format, merging behavior, provider selection semantics, and any nuances about safe_search or num_results. The agent is left to infer many operational details from parameter names alone.

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 78%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters like tags, providers, tag_match, or max_total_results; it merely restates the aggregate concept. The schema already explains most parameters adequately, but the description does not enhance understanding of how they interact (e.g., tags vs. providers precedence).

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 verb ('Aggregate') and resource ('structured web search results') and clarifies it draws from 'all enabled providers', which distinguishes it from sibling search_* tools that target specific sources (e.g., search_google, search_images). The purpose is immediately clear.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus the many search_* siblings. It does not mention alternatives, nor does it explain that this is a meta-search aggregator meant for broad queries while specialized tools exist for specific content types. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema.

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