web_search_authoritative

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the three-pass behavior, the fallback mechanism, and the return fields (pass, domains_used, authority_score, rationale). It also notes that if allow_open_web_fallback is False, the tool refuses pass 3. This covers all behavioral aspects beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with a summary, pass details, usage guidance, and parameter explanations. While comprehensive, it is slightly lengthy but every sentence serves a purpose. A minor reduction could improve conciseness.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the three-pass logic, the return shape, and all parameters, including references to sibling tools. The description leaves minimal ambiguity for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, and it does so thoroughly with an Args section explaining each parameter's purpose and behavior. For example, it clarifies that include_domains skips pick_authority_domains and that days is only relevant for news topic. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 defines the tool as a three-pass authoritative web search, detailing each pass and explicitly distinguishing it from plain web search by stating 'Prefer this over plain web search when the query has an authoritative answer'. This specific verb+resource combination differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('when the query has an authoritative answer') and what it automates (include-domains discipline and fallback ladder). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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