Web Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: 'Keyless (DuckDuckGo) and retrieved server-side' and 'Returns title, URL, and snippet per result.' It also hints at the need to assess source quality, which is a behavioral trait not captured elsewhere.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, use case, and operational/return details plus follow-up chain. It is front-loaded with the core action and maintains a tight, information-dense structure without redundancy.

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?

With a full output schema, return values are already documented. The description covers launch context (novel topics), alternatives (search-literature), operational characteristics (keyless, server-side), and post-processing (fetch-url, appraise-source). It is remarkably complete for a search tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already well-documented (e.g., site restriction, limit range, recency enum). The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the open web for sources scholarly indexes miss,' enumerating concrete content types (grey literature, official/regulatory documents, press releases, analyst commentary, news). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling search-literature by noting 'For peer-reviewed work, prefer search-literature.'

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 clearly states when to use this tool: 'Essential for novel or fast-moving topics... where peer-reviewed literature is thin.' It also names alternatives and follow-up steps: 'prefer search-literature' for peer-reviewed work, and 'retrieve with fetch-url and weigh with appraise-source (mind the source-quality cadence).'

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