search_combined

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral trait — that Grok auto-selects or merges sources — which is useful routing context. However, it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, result volume, or 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?

Three short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded. There is mild redundancy between 'comprehensive results' and 'complete picture ... from social media AND web sources', but nothing that impedes comprehension.

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?

For a three-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the source-selection behavior but omits result format, result volume, and how the date range interacts with the two sources. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and each parameter is self-documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or scope detail beyond the schema (e.g., it never clarifies that from_date/to_date apply only to the X half of the search).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('search both X and the web') and distinguishes itself from its single-source siblings (search_x, search_web_via_grok) by emphasizing 'simultaneously' and 'combine both'. It never names the siblings explicitly, but the differentiation is unambiguous.

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?

'Best for getting a complete picture of a topic from social media AND web sources' gives a positive usage cue, but there is no when-not guidance and the alternatives (search_x, search_web_via_grok) are never named as the preferred choice for single-source queries.

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