Web Search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only hints at output normalization ('citeable sources'). It discloses nothing about pagination, rate limits, auth requirements, or how 'live' behaves in practice, which is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste is genuinely concise. However, for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, the terseness crosses into under-specification rather than effective economy.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is not nearly sufficient. A search tool with scope (cn/global), freshness, and rerank options needs usage context the description does not provide. Only the purpose and a minimal output hint are covered.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it explains none of them—not query, scope, rerank, freshness, or max_results. The brief 'citeable sources' phrase maps to output rather than parameters, leaving the agent with zero guidance on parameter meaning or interaction.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('Search the live web') and states what it returns ('normalized, citeable sources'). The purpose is clear, though sibling differentiation from web_research is only implied by 'live web' rather than explicitly contrasted.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling web_research, and no context on which scenarios call for a live-web search. The description implies freshness but never states any exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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