Paper search (SearXNG)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and side-effect profile. The description adds beyond annotations by disclosing that returned web content is untrusted and instructions within it should not be followed, plus detailing return content types. This is meaningful behavioral context, though not exhaustive.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose, the second describes return content, and the third provides a critical safety warning. Each sentence earns its place, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 rich input schema with full parameter descriptions, the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It adds the key non-obvious information: response detail types, time filtering capability, and the untrusted-data warning.

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 schema already documents all eight parameters. The description only adds a brief mention of the time_range freshness filter, which is already present in the schema. This meets the baseline for schema-heavy tools but does not add substantial parameter meaning beyond it.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search scientific publications (papers, preprints, journal articles).' It further differentiates the tool by listing distinctive outputs such as titles, abstracts, authors, journal/DOI metadata, and PDF links, making it distinguishable from generic siblings like search and image_search.

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 gives clear context that this tool is intended for scientific publication search, which implies when an agent should select it over broader search tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5, but the scholarly scope is a clear usage signal.

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