web_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses key side-effects: persisting results and archiving them for later search. This goes beyond a simple read operation and informs the agent of data retention, which is important context.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with a clear one-line purpose, adds two sentences of behavior, then an Args section. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, behavior, parameter constraints, and the archiving side-effect that ties it to sibling tools. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 description explicitly documents the only parameter, 'query', and adds a max length constraint (500 chars) that is not present in the schema. With schema description coverage at 0%, this fully compensates and gives the agent clear guidance on what to provide.

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: 'Search the web and archive the results.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (web), and adds details about archiving and DuckDuckGo, which distinguishes it from siblings like web_fetch (which likely fetches specific URLs).

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 gives clear context for use ('Search the web') and mentions that results are archived for later search, implying a workflow with archive_read. It does not explicitly contrast with web_fetch or list when not to use, but the context is sufficient for a basic understanding.

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