search_web_pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds the context 'live' to indicate real-time results. It does not detail response format or pagination, but the annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no wasted words. The key action 'Live web search' is front-loaded, making the purpose immediately clear.

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?

While the description effectively conveys the core search behavior, it lacks details about the response (e.g., result count, sorting) and potential limitations. Given the parameter richness (7 params) and no output schema, additional context would improve completeness for an agent.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the intent of the query parameter ('describe the ideal page, not keywords') beyond the schema's 'natural language search query', and it reinforces the use of date/site filters.

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 'Live web search over the Keenable web index', specifying the verb 'search' and the resource 'web pages'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'fetch_page_content' by focusing on discovery rather than 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 advises 'Describe the ideal page, not keywords' and prompts using date/site filters, offering concrete query formulation guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'fetch_page_content', leaving the differentiation implied.

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