web_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions that search runs through the user's real browser and that results are structured, adding useful context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as opening tabs, relying on existing browser state, or any rate-limiting behavior.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then specifies the result structure, making it efficient for an agent 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?

For a simple search tool with one required parameter and a stated return format, the description is nearly complete. It lacks only minor behavioral details about browser side effects and limitations, which are not critical for basic invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents query, engine, and max_results. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('the web'), identifies the mechanism (Google or DuckDuckGo through the user's real browser), and specifies the return format (title, URL, snippet). This clearly distinguishes web_search from sibling browser tools like fetch_page or crawl.

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 clear context is that this tool should be used when a web search is needed, as opposed to fetching a specific page or crawling a site. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the contrast with the sibling tool set makes the intended use reasonably evident.

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