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 burdena and does essentially nothing with it. It does not say whether the call hits the network, how failures or unreachable instances surface, whether results are paginated or capped, or what the difference between json and html output actually means in practice.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the backend. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

Seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description explains nothing about return shape, error modes, or the json-vs-html result formats that materially change what the agent receives. For a network-backed search tool with no other structured guidance, this leaves real gaps.

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 clear per-parameter descriptions and enums for format, time_range, and safesearch, so the structured data does the work. The description adds no additional semantics such as how categories combine or how max_results interacts with the backend's limits; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Perform a search") and reveals the backing engine (SearxNG), which tells the agent this is a web search rather than an internal data lookup. It does not differentiate from the only sibling, health_check, though the distinction is largely self-evident.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and the SearxNG reference; there are no explicit conditions for when to use or avoid it, no note on query phrasing, and no mention of when health_check should be called first. Acceptable only because the tool's purpose makes invocation fairly obvious.

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