网页搜索

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety and mutability are covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return payload shape (title, URL, snippet) despite there being no output schema, and by imposing an obligation to cite URLs, though it says nothing about result caps (max 30), rate limits, or that results are non-deterministic across calls.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and result fields, with no filler. The second sentence is a downstream formatting rule rather than tool behavior, but it still earns its place by telling the agent how to use the output.

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?

With 5 parameters, 80% schema coverage, no output schema and a sibling tool, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns. It leaves gaps on when to choose it over news_search and on the effect of region/timelimit filtering, which matter for a search tool.

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 80%, so the schema already documents query, region, timelimit and max_results; only safesearch lacks a description but carries an enum and a moderate default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource (搜索实时网页) and states the returned fields (titles, URLs, snippets), so the agent knows exactly what action it performs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling news_search, so the agent must infer that this covers general web results while the sibling covers news.

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?

Usage is only implied: the second sentence says to cite result URLs in answers, which hints that this tool is meant for answering questions that need sourced citations. There is no explicit when-not, no prerequisite, and no statement about when to prefer news_search over this tool.

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