searxng_web_search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that availability depends on SEARXNG_URL configuration, which is useful context. It also clarifies the critical parameter naming. Beyond annotations, it provides value without contradiction.

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, beginning with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, critical note, usage tips, and follow-up suggestion. It is well-structured and front-loaded. Could potentially be slightly tighter, but effective.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return value (list with title, URL, content snippet). It covers key aspects: external dependency, parameter usage, and response_format. However, it could mention more about pagination details and the full effect of parameters like safesearch and min_score. Still, it meets completeness for most use cases.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the 'query' parameter name criticality and suggests combining time_range and language, but this does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Most parameter details are in the schema.

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 it searches the web using SearXNG, returning a list of results with title, URL, and content snippet. It differentiates from sibling tools by mentioning follow-up with web_url_read and implies distinction from searxng_instance_info and searxng_search_suggestions via context.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: the required parameter name is exactly 'query', use pageno for pagination, combine time_range and language to narrow scope, and follow up with web_url_read to read full text. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond this, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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