duckduckgo_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses important traits: result normalization, page-based pagination, the redirect-decoding behavior (always returns decoded destination URL, never raw redirect), and the data source (server-rendered search page). This is strong, though it stops short of mentioning potential 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 long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds substantive detail: output fields, pagination, redirect handling, and data source. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description does well to specify return fields, pagination, and the key redirect behavior. It is sufficiently complete for a simple search tool, though it could be slightly more explicit about the output structure (e.g., a list of result objects) and any error conditions.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds only minor context (query string, page-based pagination) that largely overlaps with the schema. It does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the input schema already 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Search DuckDuckGo web results.' It clearly states the return fields (title, destination URL, description, hostname) and pagination, which distinguishes it from sibling DuckDuckGo tools like duckduckgo_image, duckduckgo_news, duckduckgo_shopping, and duckduckgo_video.

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 general web searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives (e.g., other DuckDuckGo media searches or other search engines like google_search). The scope is clear enough from the phrase 'web results,' but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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