Web Search

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

With no annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: it returns structured JSON with a result shape, and it explains the dynamic backend selection (Brave vs DuckDuckGo) based on BRAVE_API_KEY. It does not mention rate limits, ordering nuances, or error behavior, but for a simple search tool this is useful transparency.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence contributes distinct value: purpose, output format, and backend behavior.

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 tool is simple, and the schema covers parameters; the description supplies output structure and environment-dependent behavior, which is enough to invoke the tool. Minor omissions like pagination or rate limits are not critical, but the absence of annotations and an output schema means return semantics rely on this description.

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 already fully documents both parameters (query required, n optional with constraints and default). The description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema, though it hints at the result count controlled by n. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.

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 'Search the web' and specifies the output as ranked results with title, url, snippet, establishing a distinct search-engine function. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like web_read or web_research, but the return format 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as web_read or web_research. It focuses on operational behavior (engine selection) rather than suggesting context for use, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the tool's name.

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