search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that searches run through a residential proxy, that Bing and Google operate over HTTP (not a browser), that Bing may return Copilot AI answers and citations, and that Google parses rich blocks directly from the HTTP response. This goes beyond a simple 'search' verb and informs the agent about underlying mechanics, though it does not cover rate limits, authentication, or pagination behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and engine support. It is efficient with no wasted words, appropriate for a tool whose parameters are exhaustively documented in the schema. It does not enumerate parameters or repeat schema 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?

Despite the schema covering parameters, the description fails to convey the full scope of the tool. It mentions Bing's verticals and Google's rich blocks but does not hint at the many Google-specific search types (hotels, flights, reviews, trends, etc.) or the fact that the tool supports non-web verticals. With 38 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide a broader overview, but it leaves the agent to discover capabilities solely from the schema.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not compensate for any gaps because none exist; the schema already exhaustively documents the 38 parameters.

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 runs structured searches across Google, Bing, and DuckDuckGo through a residential proxy, and highlights Bing's verticals and Google's rich-block parsing. This is specific, action-oriented, and distinguishes it from siblings like `search_bulk` (bulk queries) and `search_and_read` (reading content). It is not a tautology.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `search_bulk`. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparative context. While the parameter descriptions in the schema reference `search_bulk`, the description itself is silent, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.

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