invoicelens_web_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real value by naming the underlying engine, disclosing that results are ranked, and warning that snippet numbers are unreliable — a data-quality trait not captured by any structured field. It stops short of mentioning rate limits, latency, or query-cost behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with capability and return shape, followed by usage and then the numeric-data caveat. Nothing repeats the annotations or the schema, and every sentence changes what the agent does.

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?

With an output schema present and 80% parameter coverage, the description needn't restate fields, and it still lists them briefly. The remaining gap is minor: no word on result-count defaults/caps or what happens when a query returns nothing, though max_results and its bounds are documented in the schema.

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 80% and every meaningful parameter (query, topic, time_range, include_domains) carries its own description with examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail — recency and domains are only implied by the "recent news" framing — which is the baseline 3 case.

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 web") plus the provider (Tavily) and the exact return shape (title, URL, snippet, publication date). It also distinguishes itself from a sibling by name when numbers are needed, so an agent can pick it without opening either schema.

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 positive guidance ("Use for recent news, growth narrative and strategy") and an explicit exclusion with a named alternative ("Don't take share prices or market caps from snippets — use invoicelens_company_financials"). The cite-the-URLs instruction is an actionable usage rule rather than filler.

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