web_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions 'search' and 'normalized results'. It does not disclose provider strategy, fallback/merge behavior, result limits, or any side effects, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.

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, direct sentence that communicates the core action and result format. There is no wasted text or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite a detailed input schema, the tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not explain result semantics, provider behavior, or usage constraints. For a 12-parameter search tool with several configurable options, this is too sparse to be fully actionable.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 12 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain them. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

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 identifies the action (search) and resource (general web), and notes that results are normalized. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but 'general web' provides a useful scope hint compared to news_search or search_and_fetch.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like news_search or fetch_url. The phrase 'general web' weakly implies broad search, but there are no explicit use cases, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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