search

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: no API key required, searchMode semantics for server default versus forced modes, and a reliability caveat about proxy usage. This meaningfully enriches what the agent knows before calling.

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 three tightly packed sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by mode semantics and then routing guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main decision points: when to search, when to use alternatives, how to scope queries, and how searchMode behaves. Minor gaps remain around result format and error behavior, but the description is largely complete for correct 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 only 20%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for searchMode and query, including the site: operator pattern, but it does not clarify limit defaults, engines normalization/aliases, or minResults behavior beyond what the schema already states. Partial compensation only.

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 and resource: 'Search the web across multiple engines.' It immediately clarifies a key differentiator, 'no API key required,' and distinguishes itself from sibling documentation tools by directing official docs to resolveLibraryId + queryDocs.

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 explicitly tells the agent when NOT to use this tool: for official library/framework documentation, prefer resolveLibraryId + queryDocs because they are more reliable and work without a proxy. It also gives concrete query guidance via the site: operator, making usage conditions actionable.

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