search_web

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (title, body, url) and all defaults, but says nothing about rate limits, result truncation, latency, or whether results are cached — meaningful gaps for a search tool an agent may call repeatedly in a loop.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded, then Args and Returns are laid out in a scannable order with defaults inline. Efficient overall, with minor waste in restating types the schema already declares ("Search query string", "integer").

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?

An output schema exists, so the Returns block is largely redundant, and the missing pieces are the ones not covered elsewhere: no safety/profile statement absent annotations, no guidance on calling this alongside fetch_content to get page bodies, and no note on result limits or pagination. Sufficient to invoke, not sufficient to use well.

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 compensate and largely does: it gives a required flag for query, concrete region code examples ('us-en', 'uk-en', 'in-en'), the 1-100 range for max_results, and the three allowed safesearch values. It does not explain what region actually changes (spelling, language, ranking), which would have made this a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search the web for text content"), and the word "text" implicitly separates it from image/video/book/news siblings. It never names the closest alternatives, though, and does not distinguish itself from search_everything, so the differentiation is only partial.

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?

Usage is implied by "text content" — an agent can infer this is the sibling to pick for prose pages rather than images or videos. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of search_everything as a broader fallback, and no stated relationship to fetch_content for retrieving full pages.

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