Simple web search using DuckDuckGo HTML endpoint.
Returns a list of {title, url, snippet} objects. Best‑effort parsing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search keywords to send to DuckDuckGo. | |
| max_results | No | Maximum number of results to return (1-10). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure (list of objects) and best-effort parsing, which is beyond the schema. It notes the HTML endpoint, hinting at potential limitations, but omits details like rate limits or error behavior.
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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return structure, and parsing caveat. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler, making it highly efficient.
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 simple tool with a full output schema and 100% schema description coverage, the description is complete enough. It adds the essential behavioral context of best-effort parsing and return format, though it could mention failure modes or rate limits for full completeness.
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 input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds little parameter-specific value. The mention of 'Simple web search' aligns with the query parameter but does not introduce new syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.
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 a web search using DuckDuckGo's HTML endpoint and returns a list of title, url, and snippet objects. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch (retrieve a URL) and convert (transform data).
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 usage for simple web searches but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like fetch or convert. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the choice inferred from the tool's name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
convert and convert_url are clearly differentiated by input source (blob vs URL), while doctype, fetch, and search serve distinct purposes. Minor overlap exists between convert_url and fetch (both fetch remote content), but the conversion vs. plain-fetch distinction is explicit in descriptions.
Tool names use a mix of bare verbs (convert, fetch, search), verb_noun (convert_url), and a noun (doctype). The pattern is inconsistent, though all names are lowercase and readable.
Five tools is a well-scoped set for a document conversion and URL retrieval server. Each tool addresses a distinct need without unnecessary redundancy.
Core workflows are covered: conversion from uploaded blobs and URLs, format discovery, and web retrieval/search. Minor gap: no explicit output format listing separate from input formats, but the convert tool's outfmt parameter covers it.