Search the web

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying engine (DuckDuckGo) and the return format (titles, URLs, snippets), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that searches are read-only, safe, or free of side effects, nor does it mention limitations like rate limits or lack of advanced filtering. For a simple search tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, and contains no fluff. Every word adds value: the engine, the use cases, and the output format.

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 tool's low complexity (one string parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the essential context: what it does, what engine it uses, what it returns, and when to use it. It could be more complete with an explicit read-only note or error/edge-case behavior, but for a simple search tool it covers the core needs.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It offers guidance on what kinds of queries to use (documentation, libraries, best practices, current information), which adds meaning beyond the bare parameter name 'query'. However, it doesn't provide examples or specify query formatting/constraints, leaving some semantic gaps. The parameter is simple and somewhat self-explanatory, balancing the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('the internet (DuckDuckGo)') and clearly states the intended use: finding documentation, libraries, best practices, or current information during planning or building. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_github (GitHub-specific) and fetch_url (URL retrieval).

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('while planning or building'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It implies general web searches for development-related information, which helps differentiate it from search_github, but falls short of naming exclusions.

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