spider_ai_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavioral constraint: requirement for an active AI subscription plan. However, it does not explain what happens if the subscription is absent, nor any other side effects, rate limits, or return behavior. This is useful but limited 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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the subscription requirement. Every word contributes value, and the structure is efficient. The all-caps 'REQUIRES' is a minor stylistic issue but does not detract from clarity.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains what the tool does and the subscription requirement, but does not describe return format, result structure, error behavior, or how it differs from spider_search. For a search tool with this complexity, critical information is missing.

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 schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, only general statements about intent understanding and relevance ranking, which apply to the tool's behavior overall rather than individual parameters. The baseline 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 'AI-enhanced semantic web search' and 'finds the most relevant results' using intent understanding and relevance ranking. It identifies the tool's specific verb (search) and resource (web), and the 'AI-enhanced' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling spider_search, though it does not explicitly name the sibling. This is clear but slightly less explicit than the get_calls example.

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 does not provide explicit usage guidance, such as when to use this tool versus spider_search or other siblings. It implies using it for AI-enhanced search but gives no comparison or 'when not to use' information. The subscription requirement is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline. This is a clear gap.

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