web_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions SearXNG and 'current information' but does not describe result shape, freshness limits, rate limits, error behavior, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for an unannotated network tool.

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 one sentence with no wasted words. The action and use-case are front-loaded, and every phrase contributes to selection and invocation.

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 a required query and well-documented optional parameters, the description gives enough to begin invocation. However, without annotations or an output schema, it leaves the return format and behavioral expectations largely implicit, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 86%, so the schema already explains the parameters well. The description adds only the guidance that the query should be 'single' and 'well-formed,' which is useful but not substantial enough to raise the score above the baseline.

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 and resource: 'Search the web via SearXNG.' The phrase 'single, well-formed query' distinguishes this from the sibling tool multi_search, making its scope 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?

'Use for a single, well-formed query when you need current information' gives an explicit use case and selection criterion. It does not explicitly name when not to use read_url or multi_search, but the 'single query' phrasing implies the boundary.

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