Search with Querit

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, yet the description adds genuinely new operational facts: include_content requires a user-supplied API key, anonymous calls are constrained to include_content=false, count<=5, chunks_per_doc=1. It also flags that returned webpages are untrusted data, a prompt-injection-relevant warning absent from the annotations.

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?

Four short sentences with no filler; the core purpose and use cases lead, followed by the auth/limit constraints and the safety warning. Every sentence carries actionable information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: auth model, anonymous-mode limits, and untrusted-content handling. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by stating the conditional coupling between parameters under anonymous access (count<=5 and chunks_per_doc=1 only when include_content=false), which the schema does not express. It does not document date_range syntax or domain-list format, keeping it below 5.

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 the live web with Querit') and lists the query types it targets (facts, sources, news, products, documentation). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling querit_contents, which appears to be the content-fetching counterpart, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear context for when to reach for this tool ('current facts, sources, news, products, and documentation') plus the operational conditions for anonymous vs. API-key usage. It never names an alternative or a when-not-to-use condition relative to querit_contents, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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