Web Search (Fast: DuckDuckGo, Deep: Puppeteer/Bing)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: the two-tier architecture, default behavior (fast first), escalation conditions, and that 'No API keys required' (important authentication context). It doesn't mention rate limits or error handling, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 extremely efficient - just two sentences that pack essential information about the tool's architecture, default behavior, escalation logic, and authentication requirements. Every word earns its place with no wasted text.

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 4-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the behavioral architecture well but leaves significant gaps: no explanation of what the search returns, no parameter semantics, and no error handling information. It's adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for full operational context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't explain any of the 4 parameters beyond what's implied by 'mode' (fast/deep/auto). It doesn't clarify what 'q', 'limit', or 'lang' represent, though the schema provides constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural information.

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 performs 'Two-tier web search' with specific implementations (DuckDuckGo and Puppeteer/Bing), distinguishing it from sibling tools like fetch_url (single URL retrieval) or wiki_get (Wikipedia-specific). It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'web' with implementation details.

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 clear context about when to use different modes (fast vs deep) and the default escalation behavior, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch_url or wiki_get. It mentions 'if results are insufficient' as a trigger for escalation, giving practical guidance.

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