web_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool uses a local CLI with Gemini backend and performs real web searching, setting expectations. No mention of limits or side effects, but for a simple search tool, this is adequate.

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 concise sentences: first stating the tool's function with backend details, second listing use cases. No wasted words, well-structured for quick understanding.

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 one parameter and an output schema exists (though not shown). The description covers essential usage and context. It could mention output format briefly, but output schema likely handles that. Reasonably 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add information beyond the schema's parameter description, which already explains 'query' is a natural language search term. No extra semantic value provided.

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 using a local CLI and Gemini backend, specifying the action and resource. It also lists applicable scenarios (real-time info, news, fact-checking), making purpose highly clear.

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 explicitly mentions when to use this tool (real-time network information, latest news, fact-checking), providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would be ideal but is less critical given no siblings.

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