search_web

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

The description explains the output format (formatted text or JSON) and that it uses an AI-powered engine. No mention of rate limits, authentication, or safety (e.g., read-only). With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, but it is verbose, repeating 'optional, uses env config if not provided' for multiple parameters. Could be more 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?

Given the parameter count and sibling tools, the description adequately explains parameters and return values. However, it lacks context on when to use this tool over similar search tools (e.g., search_academic), leaving the agent to infer.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed explanations for each parameter, clarifying defaults behavior ('uses env config if not provided') and the purpose of output_format. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 it searches the web using an AI-powered engine. However, it does not differentiate from sibling search tools like search_academic, search_reddit, or search_youtube, missing a chance to clarify scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as search_academic or search_reddit. The description implies general web search but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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