web_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does a good job by stating that results are ranked, listing the returned fields (title, URL, snippet, source engines), and noting that direct answers, corrections, and suggestions appear when SearXNG provides them. It omits failure modes or rate limits, but these are minor for a read-only search tool.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the main function, the output payload, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids restating schema titles or defaults. The category examples are slightly verbose but directly useful.

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 covers the main behavior, output contents, category usage, and the news alternative; the output schema handles return detail. However, with 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, several parameters (safesearch, language, pageno, time_range) remain effectively undocumentedaine, and the sibling web_extract is not mentioned. Adequate for basic use but not fully 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 6 parameters. It only adds meaning for category with concrete examples and indirectly points to web_search_news for time-filtered news. Query is obvious, but pageno, language, safesearch, and time_range are left to name-based inference with no behavioral detail.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the web through a self-hosted SearXNG metasearch instance.' It also describes what is returned (ranked results, direct answers, corrections, suggestions) and explicitly names web_search_news as a sibling for news, so an agent can distinguish it from related tools.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: 'Use category for verticals such as science, it, files, images, videos, music, map or social media' and 'use web_search_news for time-filtered news.' This explicitly routes the agent to the news sibling. It does not mention web_extract as an alternative, but the search-vs-extract distinction is inferable.

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