search_web

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

The description discloses meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: results are aggregated from Brave Search and/or Tavily based on configured keys, deduplicated, cross-source scored, and returned with title, URL, snippet, and source. The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint are consistent with a read-only multi-source search tool, and the extra aggregation detail adds useful 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 three tightly packed sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by useful behavioral details and a clear default-use instruction, making each sentence valuable.

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?

The description covers purpose, output shape, behavior with multiple sources, and default usage context. Combined with the output schema and annotations, it provides enough for an agent to use the tool correctly, though it could slightly improve by noting what happens if no API key is configured.

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 coverage is 67%, with query and pro_mode described in the schema, but the description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning. The max_results parameter is self-evident by its name and schema constraints, so this is adequate but the description could have clarified that max_results applies after deduplication.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Multi-source web search.' It clearly states the aggregation behavior and return fields, making it easy to distinguish from specialized siblings like search_wikipedia and search_academic, even though those siblings are not explicitly named.

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 explicitly says 'Use as the default "search the web" tool,' which gives clear direction on when to choose it. It does not explicitly list what it should not be used for, but the 'default web search' framing strongly implies it is the broad general-purpose option among the more domain-specific siblings.

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