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 this is a read-only or mutating operation, what authentication might be required, or what the typical response format looks like. For a search/assistant tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 very brief and to the point - just two short sentences. While it could be more informative, there's no wasted verbiage. The structure is simple but effective for its limited content.

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 a search/assistant tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what kind of results to expect, whether this is conversational or single-response, what the Grok assistant specializes in, or how it differs from other AI assistants in the sibling tools. The description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.

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. The description adds minimal value by restating parameter names and types that are already clear in the schema. It doesn't provide additional context about query formatting expectations or timeout implications beyond what the schema descriptions state.

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 'xAI Grok assistant' which identifies the resource, but the verb 'search' is only implied by the tool name. It doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like search_chatgpt or search_claude, nor does it specify what kind of search/assistance this provides. The purpose is somewhat vague rather than specific.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling search/assistant tools. The description doesn't mention any specific context, prerequisites, or alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which provides minimal direction.

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