duckduckgo_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure and does well by stating it returns parsed results as JSON, supports region/date filters, and has pagination with 15 results per page. It also mentions the Scrapingdog endpoint, adding context beyond the schema. It does not cover failure modes or rate limits, but provides solid behavioral context.

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 only two sentences yet packs all essential information: what it does, the output format, and supported features. It is front-loaded and every word adds value with no redundant phrasing.

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?

The description is largely complete for a search tool, covering input capabilities and output format. However, there is no output schema, so the exact structure of the parsed results is not specified (e.g., whether it returns a list of results with title, URL, snippet). It also does not mention error handling or API key requirements beyond what the schema implies. Still, the core use case is well 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 100%, so each parameter is already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond repeating kl, df, and next_page_token, though it does add the pagination page size (15 per page) not present in the schema. This does not significantly improve semantic understanding beyond schema.

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 DuckDuckGo search via Scrapingdog, with a specific endpoint and output format. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by explicitly naming DuckDuckGo and mentioning key capabilities like region, date filtering, and pagination.

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 DuckDuckGo searches but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as google_search, bing_search, or baidu_search. It lacks clear when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance or any mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.

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