search_web

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions relying on a configured provider. It fails to disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, fallback behavior, or whether results are cached.

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 a single, well-front-loaded sentence. While concise, it could incorporate more useful information without becoming verbose.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema not described), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the effect of scrape_results or max_chars_per_result, nor the structure of search results.

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 coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter details. The tool has 4 parameters (limit, query, scrape_results, max_chars_per_result) with no explanations, leaving the AI unable to understand their purpose or valid ranges.

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 the tool searches through a configured self-hosted SearXNG or Brave Search provider, distinguishing it from sibling tools like crawl_url or extract_links which perform different operations. However, it could be more specific about the type of search (e.g., general web search) and result format.

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 such as crawl_site or map_site. The description lacks any context about prerequisite configurations or typical scenarios.

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