SearXNG instance doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral context: the probe mechanisms used, and that 'healthy is true when every check passed.' The instruction to treat returned web content as untrusted is a genuinely useful safety disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the trigger condition, then the result shape, then the safety caveat. Four sentences, each doing work. Slightly dense but no filler sentences.

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?

With no params, an output schema present, and safety annotations supplied, the remaining burden is light. The description covers trigger, mechanism, and success semantics, so an agent has enough to call it correctly; the explicit return-value description mildly duplicates the output schema.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The described return fields (healthy, checks with id/ok/detail) are not parameters, so they do not affect this dimension.

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?

Specific verb (diagnose) plus resource (the connected SearXNG instance), with the exact checks enumerated: JSON API probe, /config reachability, unresponsive engines, limiter state. This is unmistakably distinct from every sibling, which are all search/retrieval tools.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it when searches fail or return empty to find out whether the instance is the problem.' This frames the diagnostic-vs-retry decision clearly. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool to use instead, so it is not a full when/when-not pair.

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