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 burden. It discloses the Firecrawl backing, ranked results with snippets, auth requirements (x402 wallet without Venice account, or API key), and operator preferences. This is decent behavioral context but doesn't disclose rate limits, query limits, or return format details beyond 'ranked results with snippets.'

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 concise (3 sentences) but somewhat redundant — 'Firecrawl-backed' appears twice ('Search the web (Firecrawl-backed)' and 'Firecrawl-backed ranked results'). The operator preferences note is inserted awkwardly between the main statement and the ranking statement, disrupting flow.

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 web search tool with only 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose (Firecrawl web search, ranked/snippeted results) and auth requirements. Missing details include pagination/result count behavior, whether 'limit' caps total results, regional/language controls, and what happens on no results. 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't describe the 'query' parameter at all, though the purpose is implied by the tool name. The 'limit' parameter is also undocumented in description. However, with only 2 parameters (query and limit), the schema's JSON property names are fairly self-explanatory, mitigating the gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Search the web (Firecrawl-backed).' It clearly indicates web search functionality distinct from siblings like venice_web_scrape or venice_chat. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling search-like tools, so not a 5.

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?

Implies usage for web searching and mentions operator preferences and auth modes (x402 wallet, API key). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs venice_web_scrape or other alternatives, and the mention of 'operator preferences' is vague without explaining what those preferences are or how they affect results.

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