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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the intelligent routing mechanism, auto-selection logic, and the three provider options with their specialties. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or output format, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and routing mechanism without any wasted words. Every sentence adds essential information, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, intelligent routing) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and routing behavior well but omits details on output format, error handling, and operational constraints, which are important for a web search tool with multiple providers.

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 100%, providing clear documentation for all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the auto-selection logic for the 'provider' parameter and implying intent-based routing, but does not elaborate on parameter interactions or usage nuances. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Search the web') and resources ('web'), and distinguishes its unique capability of 'intelligent multi-provider routing' that auto-selects between three named providers based on query intent. This goes beyond a generic search tool by explaining the routing logic.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'based on query intent' and lists the three providers with their specialties (Serper for Google, Tavily for research, Exa for discovery), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide clear exclusions. Since there are no sibling tools, the lack of explicit alternatives is less critical, but guidance remains implicit.

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