web_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful context: the search goes to the public web, queries must not contain secrets, and results are capped at 10. It does not mention rate limits, result ranking, latency, or that results are public/untrusted content — meaningful gaps for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short parameter entries plus a one-line purpose statement. Front-loaded and free of filler. The docstring-style 'Args:' block is slightly verbose in format but the content is tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed. Still, for a tool with sibling overlap and no annotations, it omits selection guidance and behavioral limits (rate limits, ranking, trustworthiness of results), leaving the agent to guess when this beats search_and_fetch.

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, and it does: 'query' is described as concise and secret-free, and 'max_results' is bounded to 1–10, which the schema alone does not express. This adds real meaning beyond the bare types in the input 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search the public web with Ollama Cloud.' An agent immediately knows this is a web search tool. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings web_fetch and search_and_fetch, so the agent must infer that this is search-only versus fetch-and-search combined.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not tell the agent when to pick this over search_and_fetch (which sounds like it does the same thing plus fetching) or web_fetch. The only constraint offered is the confidentiality warning, which is about safety rather than tool selection.

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