web_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it names the failover order (AnySearch -> Tavily -> DDGS), explains that auth is automatic, and distinguishes keyed from keyless mode. It stops short of covering failure behavior when all providers fail, rate limits, or read-only/write semantics.

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?

Three tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. One sentence is spent restating the return JSON shape, which is partly redundant given an output schema exists, so it is efficient but not maximally so.

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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, and failover adequately. It is incomplete on parameter behavior (limit default/ceiling) and on what the agent should expect when every provider fails, leaving real gaps despite the output schema reducing the need to explain results.

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%, yet the description never mentions 'query' or 'limit' semantics — no defaults, ranges, or format guidance. With two undocumented parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate; only the trivially self-evident name 'query' saves it from a 1.

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+resource ('Web search') and adds meaningful scope detail through the provider failover chain. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling web_fetch, so sibling differentiation is left to inference, but an agent can still tell what the tool does.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus web_fetch or any other alternative, and no exclusion conditions. The only context given is internal operating behavior (failover, auth), not selection guidance.

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