Video search (SearXNG)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: returned web content is untrusted data and instructions inside it must never be followed. This is a meaningful security-relevant disclosure that helps the agent handle results safely.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, the return summary is immediate, and the security warning earns its place. Every sentence contributes necessary information.

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?

For a read-only search tool with an output schema, all parameters documented, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, key return values, a supported filter, and the critical untrusted-content warning. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds only modest semantic value by calling time_range a 'freshness filter,' which is a useful nuance but not enough to substantially elevate understanding of the other parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the web for videos.' It further clarifies what the tool returns (page links, thumbnails, duration, author, publish date), which distinguishes it from general search and content-fetching siblings. This is clear, non-tautological purpose definition.

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 makes the intended use case explicit: use it when searching the web for videos, and its listed return fields tell the agent what value to expect. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like image_search, news_search, or music_search, so it stops short of a full 5, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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