firecrawlsearchagent_firecrawl_web_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the mandatory use of time_filter for time-sensitive queries, support for Google search operators, and provides concrete examples of how to map user requests to parameters. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which would be useful for a web search tool.

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 well-structured and concise: it starts with the core purpose, immediately states a mandatory requirement (time_filter), explains parameter usage with clear examples, and uses bullet-like examples for common scenarios. Every sentence adds practical value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse and apply.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter semantics effectively. However, it lacks information on output format (e.g., what the search results look like) and any behavioral constraints like rate limits or error cases, which would be helpful for a web search tool with no output schema.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the rationale behind parameter usage: it clarifies why time words should be removed from search_term and moved to time_filter, provides mapping examples for time_filter values, and emphasizes the mandatory nature of time_filter for time-sensitive queries. This enhances understanding but doesn't fully detail all parameter interactions.

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: 'Execute a web search query with advanced filtering using Firecrawl.' It specifies the verb ('execute'), resource ('web search query'), and differentiator ('advanced filtering using Firecrawl'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like exasearchagent_exa_web_search or firecrawlsearchagent_firecrawl_extract_web_data by focusing on search rather than extraction or question-answering.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: it mandates using time_filter for time-sensitive requests, gives examples of when to use specific time_filter values (e.g., 'today's bitcoin news' → 'qdr:d'), and implicitly distinguishes from alternatives by specifying support for Google search operators, which may not be available in other search tools. It also clarifies to remove time words from search_term, guiding proper parameter usage.

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