web_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions that results are persisted and archived for later search, which is a significant side effect beyond the basic search operation. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but the disclosed archiving behavior adds valuable 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 appropriately short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The 'Args' section clearly attaches semantics to the parameter. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 simple one-parameter schema, the presence of an output schema, and the clear description of the tool's behavior and side effects, this description is complete. The agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and understand its archiving side effect.

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 provides only the parameter type and name with no description, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by defining 'query' as the search query and specifying a 500-character limit, which is actionable. The explanation is sufficient for a single required parameter, though it could elaborate on query formatting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the web and archive the results.' It clearly indicates the tool performs a web search via DuckDuckGo, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like web_fetch (fetching a specific URL) and playwright_* (browser automation).

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 clearly implies use for web search, not for direct fetching or browser interaction. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for search queries. A named alternative would push it to 5.

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