browserless_search

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false) already indicate safe read operations. The description adds value by disclosing that search results can be optionally scraped (with formats like markdown, HTML, links, screenshots), implying potential performance impact from multiple requests. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Search the web using Browserless and optionally scrape each result'), followed by a brief elaboration. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 complexity (11 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description covers the tool's primary capabilities—searching and scraping—and hints at output formats. However, it does not specify the structure of the returned search results (e.g., whether they include titles, snippets, URLs) or the exact output when scraping is used, which would enhance completeness.

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 all parameters described in detail (e.g., tbs enum, limit bounds, scrapeOptions nested structure). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema—e.g., it doesn't explain when to use 'scrapeOptions' versus just searching. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search the web using Browserless and optionally scrape each result.' It specifies the search engine (SearXNG), supported sources (web, news, images), and optional scraping for various formats. This differentiates it from sibling tools like browserless_crawl (multi-page crawling) or browserless_smartscraper (AI-powered scraping).

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 basic usage context—'Useful for research, gathering information, and finding relevant web pages'—but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternatives. It does not address prerequisites or scenarios where other tools (e.g., browserless_crawl for deep crawling) would be more appropriate.

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