tor_search

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

Annotations are present but the description adds no behavioral context. It doesn't disclose whether the search has side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Given readOnlyHint is false and openWorldHint is true, the description offers no additional transparency beyond what annotations already indicate.

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 very brief and front-loaded with the core action (search). However, it omits essential details, making it under-specified rather than appropriately compact. It's not verbose or redundant, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 with an output schema and multiple parameters, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what results are returned, how pagination works, or the differences between the engines. The sibling tools suggest a rich context that this description fails to address.

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 carries the full burden for parameter explanation. It only lists engine names, which map to the engine parameter, but provides no explanation of query, limit, or max_chars. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptive text.

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 that the tool performs a search using specific engines (Ahmia, Torch, DuckDuckGo, Haystack). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tor_navigate or tor_read_page. However, it doesn't specify what kind of content is being searched (e.g., Tor network, general web), so it's not fully specific.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a search function but doesn't mention use cases, prerequisites, or any exclusions. Users are left to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and the list of engines.

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