search_grok

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions a timeout parameter but doesn't explain what happens when timeout is reached, whether responses are streaming or single-shot, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. For an AI assistant tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical operational details unspecified.

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 extremely concise - just two sentences that efficiently state the tool's identity and parameter overview. Every word serves a purpose with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying essential information.

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 complexity of an AI assistant tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what kind of response to expect, whether it's conversational or single-turn, error handling, or how it differs from other AI tools in the sibling set. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (query as 'Search query or prompt' and timeout as 'Maximum wait time in seconds'). The description adds minimal value by restating parameter names and types but doesn't provide additional context like query formatting examples or timeout implications beyond what's in the schema.

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's purpose as 'xAI Grok assistant' with the core action of processing a query, which is specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_chatgpt or search_claude, which appear to be similar AI assistants, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific implementation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling AI/search tools (e.g., search_chatgpt, search_bing_search, search_google_search). There's no mention of Grok's specific capabilities, limitations, or ideal use cases compared to alternatives, leaving the agent without contextual decision-making information.

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