omega_web_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is a live web search returning accurate information, but it does not disclose potential limitations such as rate limits, response time, result count, or whether it returns full content or snippets. Basic behavior is clear, but details are missing.

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 relatively concise at three sentences plus a structured Args field. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. The Args section repeats what is already in the schema but adds value with a brief explanation. Could be slightly more streamlined.

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 tool's simplicity (single required parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, and how to use the parameter. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly, though more detail on query optimization could help.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does so via an Args section that describes 'query' as 'The optimized search query keywords or question string'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's minimal 'Query' title. However, it could include formatting tips or length limits.

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 performs a 'live web search' to retrieve up-to-date information on current events, news, documentation, or public data. The verb 'performs a live web search' is specific and the resource (information) is well-defined. No sibling tools exist, so differentiation is not required.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'whenever the user asks questions that require real-time knowledge or details outside your static training data parameters.' This is clear guidance, but it does not mention when not to use the tool or any alternatives, though none exist. Slightly more exclusion context could make it a 5.

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