search_web_via_grok

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape ('summarized results from web pages') and that results are real-time, which is genuine added context, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, cost, or freshness caveats.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences with no wasted clauses; the mechanism and return format come early. 'General knowledge' is slightly filler-ish but not enough to detract.

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 read-only search tool with fully documented params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, and typical use cases. The only meaningful gap is the absence of sibling routing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both query and allowed_domains are already documented with format and constraints (comma-separated, max 5). The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Search) and resource (the web) with mechanism (via Grok), and the 'web' scope implicitly differentiates it from the sibling search_x. It does not, however, explicitly name or distinguish itself from search_combined, which likely also touches the web.

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 sentence 'Useful for current events, documentation, news, and general knowledge' implies when the tool fits but offers no when-not guidance and no routing to search_x or search_combined. Usage is left to inference from the topic list.

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