Websearch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety and open-world profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context, namely the BRAVE_API_KEY/TAVILY_API_KEY requirement and the clear-error behavior when unconfigured, which is real value beyond the annotations. It says nothing about provider selection between Brave and Tavily, result ranking, or rate limits, so it earns a solid but not exceptional 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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded ahead of the environment prerequisite. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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?

The definition covers setup failure modes and the tool's identity, which suits a simple one-parameter tool. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists. The remaining gap is routing guidance against webfetch, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

There is a single required parameter and 0% schema description coverage, so the burden of compensating falls on the description, which says nothing about the query. An agent must guess whether it accepts natural-language questions or search operators. Because the parameter name 'query' is largely self-explanatory, this is adequate rather than severely deficient.

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?

"Search the web" is a specific verb plus resource, and it clearly sits apart from local-search siblings such as grep and glob. It does not, however, distinguish itself from webfetch, the sibling an agent is most likely to confuse it with, so the differentiation is incomplete.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance: it never says to prefer this over webfetch for open-ended queries, nor when webfetch is the better choice for a known URL. The only implied condition is that a provider key must exist, which is a prerequisite rather than a usage rule.

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