web_search_exa

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral/return context: 'Returns: Clean text content from top search results' and query tips describing ideal-page phrasing. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is multi-paragraph but well-structured with labeled sections (Best for, Returns, Query tips) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It's slightly longer than minimal, but each section provides useful operational guidance without fluff.

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 2-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the use case, return format, query strategy, and the relationship to web_fetch_exa. It doesn't specify pagination or error behavior, but that's not required given the tool's simplicity and annotations.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics for the query parameter: examples of natural language phrasing and category:people/category:company syntax, which goes beyond the schema's property description.

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 opens with 'Search the web for any topic and get clean, ready-to-use content' – a specific verb+resource+outcome. It also distinguishes from the sibling web_fetch_exa by explicitly mentioning follow-up with that tool on URLs, clarifying that this tool searches rather than fetches.

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?

Explicitly names 'Best for' use cases (current information, news, facts, people, companies) and gives direct alternative guidance: 'If highlights are insufficient, follow up with web_fetch_exa on the best URLs.' This clearly tells when to use this tool versus the sibling.

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