ask_with_realtime_information

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool uses a Groq model but does not explain whether it performs web searches, has latency, or requires network access. The presence of include/exclude domains suggests search functionality, but this is not explicitly stated, leading to potential misuse.

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 concise, one sentence long, with the core purpose front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to parse. Minor improvement could be splitting into two sentences for better structure.

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 lack of an output schema and the complexity of 5 parameters (some with enums), the description should provide more context, such as what the tool returns (e.g., an answer, possibly with citations) and when it might fail (e.g., non-real-time questions). It currently omits these details.

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%, providing baseline clarity. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, such as recommending compound-beta-mini for quick answers and advising verbose mode only when necessary, which helps the agent choose appropriate parameter values.

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 the tool's purpose: asking a question requiring real-time information using a Groq model, with examples like news and current events. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'ask_with_code_execution' by focusing on real-time data needs.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither mentions when not to use it nor contrasts with the sibling tool. The lack of usage context leaves the agent to infer when real-time information is needed.

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