web_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the underlying search provider, fallback behavior, no-authentication requirement, result shape, and graceful error handling via an 'error' field instead of raising. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail an agent needs.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose and provider first, then return format, then error behavior, then parameter docs. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 tool with no annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, how it handles failure, and exactly how to configure both parameters. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the description alone must explain the parameters. It defines 'query' as the search query and 'limit' as the maximum number of results with a 1-10 range and default 5, adding meaning beyond the bare schema fields.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the public web' via DuckDuckGo with a Wikipedia fallback. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_documents, which presumably targets internal documents. The scope is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'public web' establishes when this tool is appropriate, and the explicit note 'No API key' helps set expectations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route web queries here.

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