search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a search is performed and results are returned, but does not mention potential limitations, error behavior, rate limits, or how results are structured. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that could have nuanced 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 a single clear sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary verbosity. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is somewhat adequate, but it omits details that would help the agent understand the output format. There is no output schema or mention of what fields are in each result, error handling, or pagination. The description is minimal and does not fully cover the context needed for reliable invocation.

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 no descriptions, and the description adds no explanation of the parameters beyond their names. 'query' and 'limit' are reasonably self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify how 'limit' affects results or that 'query' might have format constraints. This leaves the agent to guess.

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 performs a web search using DuckDuckGo and returns a list of results. It uses a specific verb (performs) and identifies the resource (DuckDuckGo), making the purpose unmistakable. With no sibling tools to differentiate from, this is fully sufficient.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. Since no sibling tools exist, the lack of alternatives is not an issue, but the description still provides no context about appropriate usage scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer.

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