web_search

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

The description discloses that results are compact, that page content is not returned, and that empty/blocked results are retried automatically. The readOnlyHint annotation covers side effects; no contradictory claims are present.

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 well-organized with a short overview, behavior note, and per-parameter list. There is slight redundancy between 'compact ranked link list' and 'Returns title, URL and a short snippet per hit,' but overall it is efficient and scannable.

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 search tool, the description covers the main use case, output format, retry behavior, and key parameters. It does not explain the human-friendly list format in detail, but the schema and sibling-tool references provide enough context for correct 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 itself has no parameter descriptions, but the Args section adds concise semantics for every parameter, including examples for category, engines, language, and time_range. It also clarifies the as_json return shape with the JSON placeholder.

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 states a specific action ('Search the web via SearXNG metasearch') and explicitly identifies the output shape ('compact ranked link list'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by name and behavior, making selection clear.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'To actually read pages, call read_url; to do both at once, call deep_research.' This removes ambiguity about whether the tool returns page content.

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