web_search

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), and the description adds real operational context: free, no API key, nothing signed or spent, and a stated failure mode. It also discloses that results include page content, not just links, which is behaviorally meaningful.

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?

Well front-loaded and organized into Use when / Not for / Returns / Example sections. The example response and the 'Better than DIY' framing are mildly verbose but each section carries useful routing or format information.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by documenting the return fields (url, title, description, content; query; count) and giving a concrete example response. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'query'. The description implies the result count (top 5) but adds no syntax or format guidance for the query itself. 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (the web) with the exact result shape ('top 5 results with their full content as clean markdown'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming url_reader and crypto_news as the wrong choices for adjacent needs.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Not for' sections name the conditions that select this tool and route the agent to specific alternatives (url_reader when the URL is known, crypto_news for sentiment headlines). Nothing is left to inference.

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