run_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no rate limits, auth requirements, pagination, result caps, or which search backend is used. 'Returns a structured search payload' is the only behavioral hint, and with no output schema the agent still cannot anticipate the return shape.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, which is structurally sound. But it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely concise, so it does not fully earn its place.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and a nested settings object, the definition leaves major gaps for a tool sitting among hundreds of siblings. An agent cannot determine what this tool searches, how it differs from run_extract, or what the payload contains.

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 0% and the description explains neither of the two parameters. In particular the nested 'settings' object (country, language, max_results) is entirely undocumented, so the agent gets no syntax, format, or default information beyond the bare property names.

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 names a specific verb ('Runs') and resource ('web search'), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it offers no differentiation from adjacent siblings like run_extract or the many domain-specific search tools, so an agent cannot tell why this generic search should be preferred over run_extract.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when this generic search is preferable to the numerous sibling search tools (e.g., run_extract, run_linkedin_people_search), and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer everything about routing.

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