search

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses key traits: returns links only, never page content, nothing is fetched until asked, and results come from a self-hosted SearXNG instance or a stealth-browser-rendered search page depending on `SEARXNG_URL`. This goes well beyond the schema but stops short of describing error handling or rate limits.

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 compact and well-structured, using three short paragraphs to cover purpose, usage guidance, and backend behavior. Every sentence adds value and there is no repetition.

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?

This is a simple search tool with an output schema and rich annotations in the schema. The description covers purpose, when to use it, behavioral constraints, and backend variability. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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% (both `query` and `limit` have descriptions). The tool description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema—no additional explanation of `limit` or `query` behavior is provided. Baseline 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 verb and resource: 'Search the web and return ranked hits (title, url, snippet, engine).' It also explicitly differentiates from siblings by stating 'Not for reading' and pointing to `read_url` for one known URL and `research` for answers rather than links.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to find pages, then pass the URLs you want to `read_url`.' It also gives explicit when-not-to-use instructions: 'Not for reading: it returns links, never page content' and names alternatives (`read_url`, `research`).

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