search_web

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool provides 'current information' and 'up-to-date information,' which implies freshness but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or result format. The description adds some behavioral context (e.g., 'ideal for answering questions about recent events') but lacks details on pagination, error handling, or performance characteristics.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place by providing specific guidance (e.g., 'Ideal for answering questions about recent events') without redundancy or fluff.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits or result structure. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what the tool returns or its limitations would improve 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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'query' syntax or 'tbs' usage). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with additional param semantics.

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: 'Search the entire web for current information, news, articles, and websites.' It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('the entire web'), and distinguishes from siblings like search_arxiv, search_ssrn, and search_images by emphasizing web content rather than academic papers or images.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use this when you need up-to-date information, want to find specific websites, research topics, or get the latest news.' It provides clear alternatives by naming specific use cases (e.g., 'answering questions about recent events') and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like search_arxiv for academic content.

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