free_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the phased fallback (free then paid), engine requirements (env vars for paid), and result processing (deduplication, scoring, ranking). This provides solid behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core action ('search the web') and efficiently covering fallback, engines, and result processing. 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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains result processing (deduplication, scoring, ranking). It covers engine phases and key details. For a search tool with 3 parameters, it is largely complete, though could mention result format or pagination.

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 67%: limit and engines have descriptions. The description adds context about result ranking but does not elaborate on query parameter semantics or engine selection nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema partially covers parameters.

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 searches the web with automatic fallback between free and paid engines, specifically naming DuckDuckGo, Sogou, Brave, and Tavily. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining the phased approach and deduplication/ranking.

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 the fallback behavior but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the siblings free_extract or free_search_advanced. It implies usage when general web search with automatic fallback is desired, but lacks direct guidance on alternatives or exclusions.

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