Search via DuckDuckGo onion

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 does usefully disclose that traffic stays entirely inside Tor and that results mix clearnet and .onion sites, plus the return shape (titles, URLs, snippets). It says nothing about rate limits, DuckDuckGo throttling/blocking, failure modes when Tor is down, or whether the call is a safe read-only operation.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, and the mechanism/scope (Tor-only, .onion endpoint) is front-loaded before the return-value detail. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: mechanism, routing, and return fields. It is only slightly short of complete because it omits operational caveats (Tor availability, rate limiting) that an agent might need to handle failures.

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% and both parameters (query, limit) are documented in the schema with defaults and bounds. The description adds no further semantics about query syntax or limit behavior, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (search) and resource (the web, via DuckDuckGo's .onion service), so an agent immediately knows this is a search tool rather than a page-fetching tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like fetch_page or extract_links, but the 'search' framing is unambiguous enough to separate it.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer you call this to discover URLs and then use fetch_page/extract_links on the results. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that a working Tor circuit is required, which check_exit_ip hints at), and no guidance on when another sibling is preferable.

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