search_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions multi-provider search but does not explain result merging, pagination, output format, rate limits, or any side effects. The behavioral coverage is minimal and leaves the agent guessing about important runtime characteristics.

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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It conveys the core purpose and scope efficiently, earning a top score for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return behavior, result ordering, default provider behavior, or how 'minRelevance' and 'limit' influence results. The agent would need to infer too much, making the description incomplete for effective 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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds almost no extra parameter meaning beyond the phrase 'multiple providers', which is already reflected in the 'sources' parameter. Therefore, the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Search') and resource ('sources'), and further scopes it to 'multiple providers (web, academic, GitHub, etc.)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_research or cross_verify, which have different purposes.

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 implies when to use the tool (whenever a cross-provider source search is needed) but provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or compare it to siblings like cross_verify, so the guidance is only implied.

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