search

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no indication of result format, ranking, rate limits, API key requirements, or whether results are cached/live. Mentioning the two possible backends implies behavior may vary by configuration but never says how, which is a meaningful omission for a tool whose output depends on setup.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two enum-like parameters, with no filler. The telegraphic "see setup" phrasing is a small readability cost but does not waste space.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious parameters but leaves the result shape, the limit semantics, and the language parameter entirely to the agent's assumptions. Adequate to call the tool for a basic search, but not enough to call it well.

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 0% and no parameters carry enums, so the description is the only source of allowed values — it does provide the valid sets for categories (general, news, images) and time_range (day, week, month, year), which is genuine added meaning. It says nothing about query, limit (default 5), or language, so three of five parameters remain undocumented.

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?

"Search the web" states a specific verb and resource, and it names the underlying backends (SearXNG or Brave), which tells the agent what kind of result quality to expect. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like deep_research, ask, or extract, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 statement of when to use this versus deep_research (multi-step research) or ask (question answering) or scrape (single page). The only contextual hint is "see setup" regarding which backend is active, which is configuration guidance, not usage guidance.

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