search_web

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the output shape (ranked results with titles, URLs, snippets) and access characteristics (no API key, no quota), which is helpful. However, it does not explain the behavior of the save_as parameter, limit handling, or any potential side effects such as saving results locally.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action and result format, then adds workflow guidance and access constraints, making every sentence earn its place.

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?

The tool is simple with only one required parameter and an output schema, so the description covers the main usage scenario well. However, the unexplained save_as parameter and lack of any annotation leave a gap in understanding the full side effects and input semantics, making it not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not explain limit or save_as explicitly. The query parameter is loosely implied by 'a question', but the other two parameters rely entirely on their names and defaults for inference. This leaves meaningful ambiguity, especially for save_as.

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 web searches and returns ranked results with titles, URLs, and snippets. It explicitly positions the tool as the entry point for question-based lookups rather than URL-based processing, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch_pages and extract_by_selector.

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 gives strong usage context: use it when you have a question rather than a URL, and then feed resulting URLs into fetch_pages or extract_by_selector. It does not enumerate alternative search tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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