WebSearch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return format ('Search results formatted as a markdown string') and a specific error condition ('RuntimeError: If the SearXNG instance is unreachable'), which are meaningful operational details. It does not mention potential delays, result count limits, or network timeouts, but for a simple search tool the disclosed traits are sufficient.

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 compact and well-structured with clear Args, Returns, and Raises sections. Every line earns its place, the purpose is front-loaded, and there is no redundant filler or repetition of schema data.

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 single-parameter tool with no siblings, the description is largely complete: it states what the tool does, what the parameter is, what it returns, and a key failure mode. The existence of an output schema further reduces the need to explain return structure. Minor omissions like authentication, rate limits, or search scope details are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds only 'The search query' for the query parameter, which is minimally more informative than the schema's bare 'Query' title. This is helpful but not detailed—no format, length limits, or usage examples are provided, leaving the parameter semantics only slightly enriched.

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 starts with 'Search the web via a self-hosted SearXNG instance', which uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes the tool from generic web search by specifying the SearXNG backend, and there are no siblings to confuse it with.

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?

The description implies usage: whenever web search results are needed through this SearXNG instance. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no context on typical use cases. Since there are no sibling tools, this lack of comparison is less critical, but the description does not go beyond the basic action.

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