search_web

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only says 'search the web' and 'return relevant results with content summaries'. It does not disclose potential rate limits, query length constraints (though in schema), or whether the tool is read-only.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action ('Search the web'). No extraneous words.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It mentions the return format (content summaries), which is helpful. However, it could briefly note that results are limited to snippets.

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% with the parameter 'query' described as 'The search query'. The description repeats the verb but adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, keeping the score at baseline 3.

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 searches the web using Firecrawl and returns results with summaries. This distinguishes it from siblings crawl_website and scrape_url, which focus on specific sites or URLs.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. For example, it does not specify that this is for broad web searches whereas crawl_website is for crawling a specific domain.

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