Jev Search

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

The annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description goes beyond these by explaining that Jev picks sources, derives queries, fans out concurrently, returns ranked links with snippets and a relevance percentage, and never generates an answer. It also discloses rate limits, latency, truncation, and the need to fetch result URLs for full page content. No contradiction with annotations.

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 and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and alternative, then usage guidance, behavior, and limits. Every sentence carries useful information—examples, rate limits, snippet caveats, and fallback behavior—without filler or 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?

The description is complete for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. It covers output format, rate limiting, latency, query length limits, source selection behavior, and fallback alternatives. With full schema coverage and no output schema, there are no significant gaps in what an agent needs to know.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how the query should be phrased as a plain-language sentence, giving examples, and clarifying that naming a site or time span in the sentence is enough while sources and window exist to force them. It does not add detail about max_results, but the schema fully covers that parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the web through Jev Search' and explicitly says to use it instead of the built-in WebSearch / web_search tool. This makes the tool's role and differentiation clear even though no direct sibling tools are listed.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use this instead of the built-in WebSearch / web_search tool'), how to phrase the query with examples, and when to fall back ('If this tool returns an error, fall back to the built-in web search'). It also clarifies that naming a site or time span is enough, while sources and window exist to force them.

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