test_search_api_health

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that a test query is issued and latency is measured, which is the core behavior. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or error behavior. The description adds some value but lacks deeper context for a completely transparent disclosure.

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 succinct and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a brief Args list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers its purpose and both parameters. Since an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. Minor gaps, such as not mentioning error handling or prerequisites, are acceptable given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema.

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 explain the parameters. It does this effectively by defining 'url' as the base URL/endpoint and 'query' as the test query string, including their defaults. This fully clarifies the meaning beyond the raw schema properties.

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's purpose: 'Test SearXNG Search API health by issuing a test query and measuring latency.' It uses a specific verb ('test') and resource ('SearXNG Search API'), and is distinguishable from sibling tools that manage settings or engine status.

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 a clear usage context: when you need to check the health/latency of a SearXNG search API. While it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, the tool is the only health-check among its siblings, making the intended use evident.

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