kimi_web_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavioral trait—the maximum result count of 20—but omits other important details such as whether the operation is read-only, requires network access, or how results are structured. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 sentence that states the core purpose and a key limitation. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every word contributes to the understanding. This is an example of efficient, well-structured writing.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential information: it searches the web and returns a limited number of results. However, it lacks details about the output format, when to choose this over sibling tools, and any caveats about content inclusion, making it sufficient but not complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('query' and 'include_content'), so the schema already provides clear meaning. The description itself does not add parameter-level details, but this is acceptable given the high schema coverage. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Search' and a clear resource 'the web', making the tool's purpose immediately apparent. It also adds a concrete result limit ('up to 20 results'), but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like kimi_fetch_url or kimi_research, which could also involve web-related operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where kimi_web_search is preferred over kimi_fetch_url or kimi_research, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent is left without usage context.

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