spider_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that it returns search results and optionally full page content, but omits any details about side effects, read-only behavior, rate limits, or operational traits. This is insufficient for a tool that likely performs network calls.

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 only two sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second sentence ('Returns search results with optional full page content') is partially redundant with the first ('optionally crawl results'), adding slight bloat but still keeping it concise.

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?

For a tool with 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too minimal. It doesn't explain the return format structure, how crawling works, what 'full page content' means, or how parameters like fetch_page_content, search_limit, or auto_pagination interplay. This leaves major gaps for an agent.

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 has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning; it doesn't mention any of the 17 parameters or how they affect behavior. But since the schema already documents each param, this is acceptable.

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 identifies the tool as a web search with optional result crawling and full page content. The verb 'search' and resource 'web' are specific, and the optional full content distinguishes it from pure search. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like spider_crawl or spider_ai_search, so it's not a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over other spider_* siblings. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions. The phrase 'optionally crawl results' could actually confuse usage with spider_crawl, making the guidance weak.

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