search_web

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the use of SearxNG and the return type (WebSearchResponse), but lacks details on potential behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, or error handling. Adequate but not thorough.

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 concise and well-structured with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan. No wasted words.

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 output schema (WebSearchResponse), the description need only indicate return type, which it does. It explains all parameters and their defaults. However, it does not mention any prerequisites or result pagination, which would be helpful in a complete context.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter (e.g., language codes, time_range options, safesearch meaning). It adds value beyond the schema's raw types and defaults, though could clarify safesearch behavior more.

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 'Search the web using SearxNG,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_images and search_videos by focusing on general web search.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, no mention that search_web is for general web results while sibling tools handle images, videos, or news. The description only explains parameters.

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