agent_web_search

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the supported engines, the return format (JSON string with keys), and the lack of API key requirement. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not cover rate limits or failure 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 well-structured with clear sections: engine list, result format, args, and returns. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 a web search tool: it lists all parameters, supported engines, result structure, and output format. The output schema further clarifies returns, and the description aligns with it. No missing essential context.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, including examples for region. The description's Args section largely mirrors the schema without adding meaningful new semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and returns results, with a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('web'), and explicit support for multiple engines. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like file/memory/command operations.

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 context ('Search the web') and mentions that no API key is required, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it, though such guidance is not critical given the distinct purpose.

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