rich_fetch

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 mentions fetching 'rich results' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what the results include, whether it's a read-only operation, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'rich results' are, the return format, or any behavioral context needed for a tool with no structured data support, making it inadequate for proper agent usage.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter callback_key fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by referencing it comes from web_search.rich.hint.callback_key, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.

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 the tool fetches rich results using a callback_key from web_search, which provides a general purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'rich results' entail and doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from its sibling web_search tool, making it somewhat vague.

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 implies usage by referencing a callback_key from web_search, suggesting it should be used after web_search. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like web_search or other siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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