tor_search_onion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and open-world profile is covered. The description adds useful context by disclosing the data source (Ahmia.fi) and, in the absence of an output schema, the return shape (titles, URLs, descriptions). It does not mention rate limits, result reliability, or coverage limits.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the return values following. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with full annotation coverage, the description is largely sufficient: it names the source, the action, and the return fields (compensating for the missing output schema). The main gap is the absence of any routing guidance relative to the several related onion/Tor siblings.

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%, with both 'query' and 'limit' documented in the schema including the default of 20 and max of 1000. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search for .onion sites') and names the underlying engine (Ahmia.fi), which helps distinguish it from siblings like onion_lookup or tor_scrape_onion. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those closely related siblings.

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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as tor_fetch_onion, tor_scrape_onion, or onion_lookup. The agent is left to infer that this is a keyword search over hidden services, but there is no when-to-use or exclusion guidance.

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