inquisitor_search

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the engines but does not explain rate limits, authentication needs, default engine behavior, or what happens when fetch_content is true. The lack of detail on side effects or constraints reduces transparency.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but overly brief for a tool with 7 parameters and no schema descriptions. It front-loads the key action and engines but omits crucial details, making it somewhat under-specified.

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 complexity (7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description still lacks completeness. It does not explain output format, engine-specific behaviors, or edge cases like missing results. The output schema partially compensates, but the description remains insufficient.

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%, so the description must clarify parameters. It does not mention any parameter (query, engine, time_range, etc.) beyond the engines listed. The agent cannot infer what each parameter does from the description alone.

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 it searches the web and lists three specific engines (DuckDuckGo, Brave, SearXNG), distinguishing it from sibling tools like inquisitor_analyze or inquisitor_trace which have different functions. However, it could be more explicit about the resource being 'web search results'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or how to choose between engines. It only states the engines supported, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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