grok_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'AI-powered search capabilities' and analysis features like 'timelines, quotes, and multiple perspectives,' but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a search tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently state the tool's purpose and capabilities. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and analysis modes but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage differentiation from siblings, and output expectations. Without annotations or output schema, more context would improve completeness for effective agent use.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context by mentioning 'comprehensive analysis with timelines, quotes, and multiple perspectives,' which relates to the 'analysis_mode' parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search the web using Grok's AI-powered search capabilities.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('the web'), and mentions AI-powered capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'grok_web_search' or 'grok_news_search' beyond mentioning search types, which limits differentiation.

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 implies usage by mentioning support for 'basic search results and comprehensive analysis,' but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'grok_news_search' or 'grok_web_search.' No alternatives or exclusions are stated, leaving usage context implied rather than clear.

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