tor_search_onion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search engine used and the return format (titles, URLs, descriptions), but does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or any potential side effects. For a simple search tool, this is minimally adequate.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no extraneous information. The purpose is front-loaded, and every word adds value. It is highly 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's behavior: it searches .onion sites via Ahmia and returns titles, URLs, and descriptions. No critical information is missing.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described (query and limit). The description adds context beyond the schema by specifying the search engine and the structure of results, which helps the agent understand what each parameter contributes.

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 searches for .onion sites using the Ahmia.fi search engine and returns titles, URLs, and descriptions. It specifies the verb 'Search' and the resource '.onion sites', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like tor_fetch_onion which likely retrieves a specific page.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (searching for .onion sites via Ahmia), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. It is implied that this is the appropriate tool for searching hidden services, but lacks exclusion criteria.

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