search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states 'Search the web using Exa AI' and does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., list of URLs, snippets), how results are ordered, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The mention of Exa AI is the only extra context, which is minimal.

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 a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded and free of fluff. It earns its place by stating the core purpose. However, it is arguably under-specified for a tool with a second parameter, so it does not fully maximize the conciseness dimension – it is concise but not richly informative.

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 a 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is not complete enough. It does not explain what a successful search returns, how numResults affects behavior, or any caller expectations (e.g., rate limits, errors). An agent would have limited ability to predict the tool's output or edge cases from this description alone.

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%: both 'query' and 'numResults' have descriptive text in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does not clarify query syntax or result behavior, but the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 'Search the web using Exa AI' clearly states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('the web'), and names the underlying service ('Exa AI'). With no sibling tools, differentiation is not needed, so this fully satisfies the purpose clarity criterion.

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 for web search but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since there are no sibling tools, there is no exclusionary context, but the description also lacks any prerequisites or context like 'use this when you need current web information'. This is adequate but not explicit.

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