cursor_web_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the search runs server-side and returns a synthesized answer with source links (valuable given no output schema), but it says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, or failure behavior for a network-dependent 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return value, with zero redundant phrasing. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output shape, and use case adequately. Only auth/rate-limit context is missing, a minor gap given the presence of login siblings.

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 both parameters (searchTerm, maxResults) are already fully documented. The description adds no format, syntax, or query-construction guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Web search') and adds what it produces ('synthesized answer with source links'), which distinguishes it plainly from the login/oauth siblings. 'Cursor server-side, pure protocol' is somewhat opaque jargon but does not obscure the core purpose.

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?

'Good for latest docs, releases, facts' gives an implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no reference to the sibling tools or alternatives. The agent can infer intent but is not told when another tool would be better.

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