free_search

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

Given no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: automatic fallback between free/paid engines, required API keys, deduplication, scoring, and ranking. This is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's operation.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, phases with requirements, and output behavior (deduplication, scoring, ranking). No extraneous 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?

For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the fallback, engine requirements, and output quality. However, it does not describe the structure of the return value, which might require the agent to infer an ordered list.

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 already describes 'limit' and 'engines' parameters, but the description adds context by mapping engines to phases and explaining free vs. paid. However, the 'query' parameter lacks additional semantic explanation beyond the schema.

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 that the tool searches the web with automatic fallback between free and paid engines, and specifies the two phases and engines. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the automatic fallback mechanism, which is a unique selling point.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling tools 'free_extract' or 'free_search_advanced'. It lacks guidance on alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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