web_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that results are not directly returned and must be read via snapshot, and that it relies on 14 browser macros. This is significant behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 core action, and every word adds value. The list of macros is necessary for enumerating options, and the snapshot instruction is a critical callout. No fluff or repetition.

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 and the lack of an output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the search engines, explains the follow-up snapshot step, and implicitly signals that tabId comes from create_tab (already in schema). It doesn't cover error scenarios, but for a standard search tool this is adequate.

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?

The schema already describes all three parameters fully (query, tabId, engine) with 100% coverage. The description adds only the list of valid engines, which duplicates the enum, and no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 searches via a specific set of 14 named macros, distinguishing it from navigation and snapshot tools. The verb 'Search' plus the explicit list of engines makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives a clear procedural cue: 'Call snapshot after to read results,' which tells the agent the immediate next step. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like 'navigate' or 'snapshot', though the workflow implication is sufficient for basic use.

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