Search the web for information. Use when you need to find web pages, articles, or data. Providers: tavily (factual/citations and search controls), brave (privacy/operators), kagi (quality/operators), exa (AI-semantic), kagi_enrichment (specialized indexes). Search depth, topic, time range, safe search, raw content, and automatic parameters apply when supported by the provider.

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful context that search depth, topic, time range, safe search, raw content, and auto_parameters behave conditionally 'when supported by the provider,' but it does not disclose result-format, citation, pagination, or cost behavior, which would add meaningful transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose appears in the first sentence, usage in the second, and the provider rundown is dense but informative. The title is a verbatim duplicate of the description, which is mildly redundant, but no other space is wasted.

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 12 parameters, 5 enums, and no output schema, the description carries a heavy burden. It covers purpose, usage context, and provider-specific parameter behavior, but it does not describe the result format or return expectations, and the provider list conflicts with the schema enum. For such a configurable tool, these are 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description does add meta-information: several parameters (search_depth, topic, time_range, safe_search, raw_content, auto_parameters) are provider-dependent, which is not in the schema. However, the description lists 'exa' as a valid provider while the schema enum omits it, which could mislead an agent into sending an invalid provider value and offset the added value.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use directive ('Use when you need to find web pages, articles, or data') and adds provider-selection guidance by use case (e.g., tavily for factual/citations, brave for privacy/operators). It does not mention sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, stopping short of a 5.

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