Web Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds significant behavioral context: parsing from HTML endpoints, bot-bypassing, returning one page of ~10 results, and engine fallback behavior. No contradictions.

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: purpose first, then output type, then limitations, then workflow. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 (6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers all key aspects: return format, pagination limits, engine behavior, and workflow. It is complete for the agent to use the tool effectively.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter semantic details beyond what the schema provides, though it does explain engine behavior and page limitations implicitly. No additional value beyond 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 it searches the web and returns links (title, URL, snippet). It distinguishes from the sibling tool web_fetch by specifying that it returns links not summaries, and explicitly recommends following up with web_fetch for full content.

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 explicit guidance: use web_search to find pages, then web_fetch to read them. It also warns against expecting deep pagination and suggests refining the query. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools beyond web_fetch.

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