web_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the underlying service (Tavily) but fails to disclose rate limits, pagination, result format, or any side effects. As a read operation, lacks essential behavioral context for safe invocation.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which reduces the burden of explaining return values), the description lacks details on result format, limitations, or typical use cases. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not rich.

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 three parameters but zero description coverage in the schema itself. The tool description does not explain the meaning or usage of 'query', 'max_results', or 'academic_only' beyond their titles, leaving the agent without guidance on how to properly set these parameters.

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 verb 'search' and the resource 'web', specifying the purpose as 'for evidence about a factual claim or question.' It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like 'autonomous_research', though not explicitly differentiated.

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 implies when to use the tool (when needing evidence for a factual claim or question) but does not provide guidance on when not to use it or contrast with sibling tools like 'autonomous_research.' No alternative suggestions are given.

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