Search

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, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether the call is read-only (implied but unstated), not whether SearXNG rate-limits or fails on some categories, not how pagination interacts with max_results. The presence of an output schema excuses explaining return values, but the operational behavior remains undocumented.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource lead. It is efficient, but the brevity reflects under-specification as much as discipline, so it does not reach 5.

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 6-parameter search tool with no annotations, the description should convey freshness/pagination behavior and any constraints on result quality. The output schema removes the need to describe return shape, but the tool's operational contract is left entirely to the 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 100%, so all six parameters (query, page, language, categories, time_range, max_results) are already documented in the schema, including the SEARXNG_LANGUAGE default and enum values for time_range. The description adds nothing beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('the web') and identifies the backend as SearXNG, so the agent knows exactly what capability this is. With no sibling tools there is nothing to differentiate against, but the description stops short of stating scope (e.g., whether it aggregates engines, returns snippets, or respects freshness).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other options, nor any hint about when to set categories, time_range, or language to narrow results. With no siblings the alternative-routing burden is absent, but a user still gets no situational guidance at all.

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