run_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the synchronous execution and immediate return of structured results, which is valuable. However, it does not address safety (e.g., whether it is read-only), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error behavior, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and return format. It includes only essential details like synchronous execution and no polling, with no redundant or vague wording. It is well-structured and easily scannable.

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 relatively simple tool, the description covers the main purpose, return structure, and synchronous behavior, while the schema covers parameters. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, it is reasonably complete, though it could briefly explain how settings (like max_results) affect the result set or mention any constraints.

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 100% for the top-level parameters (query and settings both have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters, and the nested settings properties (country, language, max_results) remain minimally documented, but the high schema coverage makes this acceptable.

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 uses the specific verb 'runs' and resource 'web search', and specifies the output as a structured list of ranked results (title, url, snippet). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_research or run_agent, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 provides clear usage context by stating the search is synchronous and returns immediately 'without polling', implying it is suitable for quick, direct search needs. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to prefer this over run_research or other sibling tools, so it misses the 'when-not' guidance.

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