Venice 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. It mentions it is Firecrawl-backed and returns ranked results with snippets. It does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-destructive, but the nature of a web search implies that. More information about rate limits, response structure, or authentication requirements would improve transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Search the web'). It is efficient and contains no fluff. The auth mention is valuable but could be placed at the end. Overall, it earns its length.

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 search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and mentions the backend (Firecrawl) and auth options. However, it lacks details about output format (beyond snippets), pagination, error handling, and any limitations. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the parameters. 'query' is implied by 'Search the web', but 'limit' is not explained. The schema provides constraints (min, max) but no descriptions. For a simple tool with two parameters, the description adds marginal 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 'Search the web (Firecrawl-backed). Returns ranked results with snippets.' The verb 'Search' and resource 'the web' are specific. The tool name and title reinforce this. Among sibling tools, only 'venice_web_scrape' is similar, but that scrapes a specific page, while this is a general search, so distinction is clear.

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 mentions auth methods ('Supports x402 wallet auth (no Venice account needed) and API key'), indicating when the tool can be used. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are provided. The context is clear for a search tool, but it could mention that for scraping a single page, 'venice_web_scrape' is appropriate.

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