willow_web_search

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description reveals the DuckDuckGo HTML mechanism, the absence of an API key, the result fields, and important caveats: trusted_only 'cannot distinguish a real institution from a lookalike' and include_handoffs requires web_net + consent.internet + a live egress lease. This is substantial behavioral context.

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 front-loads the core purpose and return fields, then gives use-case guidance, then explains each non-obvious parameter. Multiple paragraphs are justified because every sentence adds decision-relevant information with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description lists the exact return fields. It covers when to use the tool, alternatives, parameter behavior, caveats, and runtime prerequisites. An agent has enough to select and invoke this tool correctly without further ambiguity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains trusted_only and include_handoffs, including limitations and prerequisites. Query and max_results are self-evident from their names; app_id is not explicitly documented, which is a minor 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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Open web search via DuckDuckGo HTML (no API key)' and enumerates the return fields. It distinguishes itself from the sibling willow_institutional_search by positioning this tool for the 'live open web' vs. institutional citations.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool for 'current events, tech news, and queries that need the live open web.' It also gives a concrete alternative: 'Prefer willow_institutional_search for citations that need backing,' so an agent knows when not to use it.

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