search.web

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

No annotations are provided, so the description covers behavioral aspects by noting it returns fresh information and supports various parameters (paging, country, freshness, safesearch). It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but the tool is read-only and non-destructive, so the description adequately sets expectations.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence conveys the core purpose and output, and the second lists supported features. It is front-loaded and concise.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return fields (title, URL, snippet, site name, page age). It covers all key functional aspects. Minor omission: does not specify maximum results per page or ordering, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 50%, but the description adds context for parameters: 'Supports paging (count/offset)' explains the paging mechanism, and 'freshness (pd/pw/pm/py or date range)' clarifies the format. This adds meaning beyond the schema, especially for the 'freshness' parameter.

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 that the tool performs web search and lists the returned fields (title, URL, snippet, site name, page age). It also emphasizes real-time data, distinguishing it from other tools that are specialized (e.g., news.search, papers.search).

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 provides explicit use cases: 'Use for current events, fact verification, documentation, research.' While it does not mention when not to use or exclude alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient for most scenarios.

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