search

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the tool's purpose and engine, without mentioning output format, result limits, rate limits, authentication needs, or error behavior. There is zero behavioral disclosure beyond the basic function, so the score is 1.

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 that immediately states the core function, avoiding any filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with a well-documented schema, containing only the essential purpose information. This exemplifies conciseness.

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?

Despite a detailed schema, the description omits contextual information such as what the tool returns (e.g., search results), how it behaves with defaults, or any limitations. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least indicate that results are returned, but it doesn't. The tool has 9 parameters and no additional context, making this incomplete for an agent selecting and invoking it correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with each of the 9 parameters described with types, defaults, and meaning. Per the scoring guidelines, this warrants a baseline of 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter details. The description does not compensate or add any information, but the schema is sufficient, so the score stays at 3.

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's action ('Search the web') and specifies the underlying technology (SearXNG metasearch engine), making the purpose immediately understandable. Although it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools 'crawl' and 'crawl_site', the verb 'search' naturally distinguishes it from crawling activities, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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 the sibling tools 'crawl' or 'crawl_site'. It does not mention alternative scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the tool's name. This absence of any context or comparison results in a low score.

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