Search Design Web

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a live web search and that results can be scoped via `sites`, which is useful. However, it does not mention return format, error behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving notable gaps in transparency for an unannotated tool.

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, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. It efficiently contrasts with specialized tools and highlights the optional `sites` parameter without redundant detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 general-purpose nature, 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough context for selection and invocation: what it does, when to use it, and a key parameter. It could be more complete by briefly describing the return structure or limitations, but it is not critically inadequate.

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 7 parameters. The description mentions `sites` for domain scoping, but this is already in the schema, adding no new semantic value. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear specific verb and resource: 'General-purpose live web search tuned for design and front-end topics.' It also differentiates from siblings by stating this is not locked to curated galleries, unlike the specialized tools. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly contrasts with specialized tools and gives concrete use cases: 'use it for design systems, articles, accessibility guidance, tokens, or anything else.' This tells the agent exactly when to choose this general tool over the sibling tools like kroma_find_ui_inspiration or kroma_find_component_code.

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