web_search

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the tool's core behavior: it automatically plans multiple searches, reads and verifies sources, and returns cited structured answers. This gives the agent operational expectations, though it does not address rate limits or failure modes.

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 two concise Chinese sentences: first establishes the tool and its mechanism, second states use cases. No filler; every sentence carries meaning.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, how it works, output format, and appropriate contexts. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 schema already fully describes the 'query' parameter with a usage suggestion (complete question). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline score applies.

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 the tool performs standard online search, with specific behavioral details (multi-search planning, source verification, cited structured answers). The 'standard mode' phrasing hints at differentiation from siblings fast/deep, but it does not explicitly name them as alternatives.

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?

It specifies suitable use cases (daily queries, news, fact confirmation), giving the agent clear context for when to select this tool. However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or contrast with web_search_fast/web_search_deep.

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