live_search

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 'real-time' and 'current information', which adds useful context about timeliness. However, it lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or error handling. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Perform real-time web search') and includes key details (tool used, sources, purpose). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, nested objects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at behavior but doesn't fully compensate for missing structured data. For a search tool, users might need more on result format or limitations, but the description provides a functional starting point.

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 adds marginal value by mentioning 'real-time' (hinting at date_range relevance) and listing sources (web, news, x/Twitter), which aligns with the 'sources' parameter enum. However, it doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies, such as query formatting tips or source-specific behaviors.

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: 'Perform real-time web search using xAI's Grok' with specific resources ('web, news, or X/Twitter') and context ('for current information'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like analyze_image or generate_image by focusing on search rather than content creation or analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'chat' which might also involve information retrieval.

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 implies usage context ('for current information') and mentions specific sources, suggesting when to use it for real-time data. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'chat' (which might handle conversational queries) or when not to use it (e.g., for historical data or non-web sources). The guidance is present but incomplete.

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