parallel_search_web

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 mentions 'parallel' execution and 'optimal performance' with max 5 searches, which adds useful context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (since no output schema exists). The description provides some operational context but leaves significant gaps for a tool that performs multiple external searches.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured: three sentences that each earn their place. The first states the core purpose, the second provides usage guidance, and the third suggests a complementary tool. No wasted words, and the most important information (parallel execution for comprehensive coverage) is front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (parallel web searches with multiple configurable parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. While it explains the parallel nature and suggests query diversity, it doesn't address what results look like, how errors are handled, or performance considerations beyond the 5-search limit mentioned in the schema. For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, more behavioral context would be needed for full completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'multiple search queries' which aligns with the 'searches' parameter, but provides no additional syntax, format, or semantic details. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Run multiple web searches in parallel for comprehensive topic coverage and diverse perspectives.' It specifies the verb ('run'), resource ('web searches'), and key characteristic ('in parallel'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'search_web' (which presumably runs single searches). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'parallel_search_arxiv' or 'parallel_search_ssrn' beyond mentioning 'web' searches.

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 clear context for usage: 'For best results, provide multiple search queries that explore different aspects of your topic.' It also suggests an alternative tool: 'You can use expand_query to help generate diverse queries.' This gives practical guidance on when to use this tool (for parallel searches with diverse queries) and mentions a complementary tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. single 'search_web' for simple queries).

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