web_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns structured output (titles, URLs, snippets) but does not discuss potential limitations such as rate limiting, pagination, error handling, or whether results respect user preferences. For a read-only search operation, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 a single, straightforward sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and provides essential output details without redundancy.

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?

For a simple search tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It gives the agent an understanding of what it does and what it returns. The lack of any caveats about rate limits or usage constraints is a minor gap, but the tool's simplicity makes it largely complete.

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%, so both parameters (query and num_results) are already documented with types and descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for these parameters, only an overview of the output. Since the schema handles parameter semantics adequately, a baseline of 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 action ('Search the web'), specifies the engine (DuckDuckGo), and describes the output format (structured results with titles, URLs, and snippets). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like web_extract or web_monitor, which have different purposes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations where a different sibling tool (e.g., web_extract for page content, web_monitor for changes) would be more appropriate. Usage context is only implied by the name and purpose.

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