search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'a compact summary plus hidden raw payload' which gives some output information, but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'compact summary' entails. For an 11-parameter search tool with no annotations, this is insufficient 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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main action and result. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complex search tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, doesn't differentiate from siblings, and provides minimal behavioral context. The description should do much more to help an agent understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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 description provides zero information about any of the 11 parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining what parameters like 'categories', 'engines', 'time_range', 'safesearch', or 'ttl' mean or how they affect the search. This leaves the agent with no semantic understanding of the parameters beyond their names.

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 searches SearXNG and returns a compact summary plus raw payload. It specifies 'single query' which distinguishes it from search_many, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from research or search_and_fetch. The verb+resource combination is specific ('search SearXNG'), though sibling differentiation could be more explicit.

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 like research, search_many, or search_and_fetch. It mentions 'single query' which implies a limitation compared to search_many, but doesn't explain when to choose this over research or search_and_fetch. No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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