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 only says 'current information' but does not describe result formats, pagination, rate limits, or what kind of web sources are searched. The description is too vague to be informative.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded and easy to parse. It does not waste words, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing useful behavior and parameter details.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and common use cases. It does neither, and also lacks usage context compared to its sibling tools. The description is too minimal for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in varied scenarios.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description does not mention 'query' or 'max_results' at all. Since the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but not guaranteed, the lack of any explanation leaves the agent to guess their exact semantics and constraints.

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 'Search the web for current information' clearly states the action (search) and resource (the web), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like fetch_url or query_local_docs, so it stops 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios like needing fresh information, distinguishing from local document search, or say when not to use it. This is a clear gap.

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