search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two real behaviors (the 1–128 character query limit and count clamping to 1–50), but says nothing about authorization, rate limits, cost implications of need_content, or the shape of returned results.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the constraint follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 5-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is thin: it omits return format, when to prefer 'fetch', and the meaning/effect of need_content, localization, and ori_question. It is minimally viable but leaves meaningful gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents count, localization, and need_content. The description adds the 1–128 character query bound, which the schema omits, but otherwise repeats the count clamping already in the schema and never explains ori_question or localization.

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+resource ('Search the web') and names the backend provider (DeepSeek), which is enough to identify the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'fetch', leaving the search-vs-retrieve routing to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the 'fetch' sibling, nor any preconditions or exclusions. The only guidance given is input constraints, which belongs to parameter semantics rather than usage.

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