web_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses cost ('Costs 1 page'), result count ('Returns up to 10 results'), and a key behavioral nuance (snippets often contain the answer). This goes above and beyond typical descriptions.

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 information-dense yet concise. Every sentence contributes value: it lists return fields, surfaces, usage guidance, result limits, and cost. The structure flows logically from core function to operational detail.

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 search tool with an output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers what is returned, the surrounding surfaces, when to use alternatives, result caps, and cost. The only gap is the region parameter, but that is a minor omission given the overall richness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The query parameter is implied but never explicitly described, and the region parameter is completely absent. This leaves the agent guessing about the region format and effect.

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 searches Google and returns organic results with specific fields (title, URL, snippet, etc.), and distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning fetch and deep_search. The verb-resource combination is precise and the scope is well-defined.

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?

Explicitly guides when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use `fetch` when you need the full page, and `deep_search` when one page will not settle it.' Also advises reading snippets before fetching, providing clear decision rules.

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