web_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the return format (JSON string with url, title, summary) and general search behavior, but lacks information about error handling, rate limits, potential side effects, or what happens with no results. The return structure is helpful, but overall transparency is moderate.

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 well-structured with a brief opening, parameter guidance, and a clear Returns section. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but every section earns its place, providing useful examples and output details without redundancy.

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, four parameters, and no output schema, the description covers all aspects: query formulation, platform, min/max results, and return format. It could mention edge cases like empty results or errors, but for a search tool the provided information is largely sufficient. The absence of an explicit distinction from web_fetch is a minor gap.

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%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. It explains that query should be a clear, self-contained natural-language query with optional constraints, provides concrete examples for platform (Twitter, GitHub, Reddit), and clarifies min_results/max_results as bounds on the result count. This goes well beyond the bare schema descriptions.

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 performs a third-party web search and returns results as a JSON string. The verb 'performs' plus resource 'web search' is specific, and the tool name aligns. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling web_fetch by focusing on search rather than fetching a specific page.

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 provides detailed guidance on how to formulate queries and use platform/min_results/max_results parameters, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives like web_fetch. Usage context is implied by the tool name and behaviors, but no clear 'use this for X, not for Y' guidance is given.

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