Search Web

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the key trait that no API key or SDK is required, and that googlemaps is browser-rendered. However, it does not mention rate limits, result format, pagination, or potential delays from browser rendering, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every clause adds value (source list, prioritization, API key requirement).

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 output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers the essential context: what the tool searches, the source priorities, and an important behavioral fact (no API key). Minor omissions like rate limits or engine defaults keep it slightly short of a 5.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It lists the engine names and their prioritization, which effectively explains the `engines` parameter. However, it does not explicitly discuss `query` or `maxResults`, though these are self-evident from the schema (min length, min/max bounds). Partial compensation only.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search the live web'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the scope (prioritized sources) and excluding others (search engines vs scraping/lead tools). This makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use this tool: for live web searches across specific engines, with a prioritization order. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but among the sibling tools (scrapers, lead management) it is obviously the only search tool, so usage context is clear.

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