static_web_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses 'stateless' and 'cheap' but omits critical behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, caching behavior, or error handling. The term 'compact normalized results' is vague.

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 concise at two sentences and front-loads the key information ('Cheap stateless web search'). Could be slightly improved by structuring parameter hints, but overall efficient.

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 description mentions 'artifact_id' but does not explain its purpose or how to use it (e.g., with sibling static_web_get_artifact). The output format is not described. For a tool with an output schema, the description is moderately complete but lacks clarity on return structure and usage flow.

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%, yet the description does not explain the meaning or effect of any parameter (query, limit, max_tokens). The agent must infer from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 action ('web search'), the resource ('local SearXNG'), and the outcome ('compact normalized results and an artifact_id'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like interactive browser actions (action_web_*) and extraction (static_web_extract).

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 usage for quick, stateless, non-interactive searches via 'Cheap stateless web search', hinting at when to use over interactive siblings. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or precise alternatives.

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