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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real-time' and 'via Perplexity,' which adds some context about the search engine and timeliness. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or potential costs/limitations, which are critical for a web search tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (web search with real-time focus), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and usage context but lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, or error handling, leaving gaps that could hinder effective agent use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'query,' so the schema already documents it adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as query formatting tips or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function as 'Real-time web search via Perplexity' with the purpose 'for current events, recent info, live data.' This specifies the verb (search), resource (web), and scope (real-time/recent), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'think' or 'wolfram_query' that might also retrieve information.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: 'for current events, recent info, live data.' This gives practical guidance, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'scrape_url' for static content or 'think' for internal reasoning).

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