Веб-поиск (glyph)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the engine (Mojeek), output format (plain text, no HTML), and benefits (no captcha, no JS, no ads, token savings). It does not mention rate limits or caching behavior, but the disclosed traits are sufficient for a search tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action and key features. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more compact without losing information.

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 has 2 parameters, no output schema, and a sibling tool, the description covers most relevant aspects: engine, output format, token efficiency, and usage scenarios. It lacks detail on the exact structure of results but is generally complete for a search tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it performs web search with flat text output via glyph browser using Mojeek engine. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'web_fetch', which may have overlapping functionality. The purpose is specific but sibling distinction is not provided.

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 (general/text/documentation queries) and when not to (real-time, JS-rendered, paid results), and suggests an alternative (built-in web search). This provides clear usage guidance.

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