web_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does state the return format, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential network/API side effects, rate limits, or explicitly confirm that this is a read-only operation, leaving some gaps.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the action and the expected output, with no redundant details. It is concise, well-structured, and easy to parse.

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 two-parameter tool, the description and schema together provide enough context: what to search, how many results, and the output format. It lacks optional details like examples or error handling, but these are not critical for a tool of this complexity.

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 fully describes both parameters ('query' and 'count') with clear descriptions and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search the web'), identifies the resource ('Ollama's web search API'), and states the output format (numbered list with title, URL, snippet). This makes the tool's function unmistakable. No sibling tools exist, so differentiation is not needed.

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 alternatives are listed, but the purpose statement clearly implies when to use it: whenever web search results are needed. The context is evident from the description, though it does not include explicit when-not-to-use guidance or exclusions.

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