Web Search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the meaningful trait that results are merged from multiple configured providers into a unified list, which the schema does not convey. However, it says nothing about provider failures, rate limits, deduplication, or auth requirements, leaving notable gaps for a no-annotation 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the aggregation behavior is stated first and nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the three parameters are simple. Still, the description omits how to choose this tool over 'research'/'scrape' and what happens when an unknown or unavailable provider is passed in 'sources', leaving it only minimally complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents 'query', 'limit', and 'sources' (including provider examples). The description adds no syntax, format, or behavioral detail beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the web') plus the aggregation scope ('across SoloCrawl's configured providers and return unified results'), which tells the agent this is a federated search rather than a single-provider one. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the 'research' or 'list_providers' siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives: the agent is not told when to prefer this over 'research' (deeper multi-step investigation) or 'scrape' (single-page fetch). Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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