search_web

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Search the web' but fails to mention that this involves external HTTP requests, potential rate limits, latency, or error handling if an engine fails. There is no indication of the tool's impact on resources or any side effects beyond the basic action.

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 highly concise, consisting of a single sentence for the purpose followed by a bullet list of parameters. Each parameter is described in a single line. There is no redundant information, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not described) and three parameters. The description covers the core functionality and parameter semantics but omits details about the return structure, pagination, error codes, or any usage constraints. Given that an output schema exists, the description could have been more complete by summarizing the response format.

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 schema description coverage is 0% (no descriptions in the schema properties). The description compensates by listing each parameter with a brief explanation, including possible engine values and defaults. However, it does not add details beyond the schema's property names and defaults, such as constraints on 'count' (e.g., maximum) or format of 'query'.

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 'Search the web using multiple engines', specifying the verb (search) and resource (web with multiple engines). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly listing the engines and the 'auto' selection, implying a mult-engine capability not present in siblings like 'readability_url' or 'research_topic'.

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 lists parameter details (engines, default count) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where a specific engine is preferred nor when not to use the tool. The sibling list contains many tools that might be used for related tasks, but no explicit comparison is provided.

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