web_search

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions cost ($0.03/call, free tier) but omits critical details such as rate limits, result format, scope of search, or any limitations. Significant gaps remain.

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 very concise, using a single line. While it includes useful cost information, it prioritizes brevity. Structure is minimal but appropriate for a simple tool.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., search results, URLs), nor does it provide enough context for the agent to interpret the output. Given the simplicity, more details about the output would be expected.

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 input schema has one parameter 'query' with a description '搜索词' (search term). Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so score remains 3.

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 '全网搜索' (whole web search) clearly indicating a general web search tool. While it distinguishes from specialized tools like arxiv_search or ecomm_search by its generality, it does not explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions it is a web search, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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