web_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results come from multiple search engines combined and that filtering options are supported, but it does not mention limitations, rate limits, result count, or whether the operation is read-only. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, supported controls, and output behavior. The most important information is front-loaded, with no filler or repeated schema content.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and high-level behavior but not result format, pagination behavior, or edge cases like empty results. It is sufficient for basic invocation but leaves some context to be inferred.

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 67%, and the schema already documents query, page, language, and safesearch values. The description adds a high-level statement that categories, languages, time ranges, and safe search are supported, but it does not add details beyond the schema. The generic references are not enough to meaningfully augment the schema.

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: 'Performs a web search using SearXNG', and enumerates concrete use cases such as general queries, news, articles, and online content. It also distinguishes itself from a plain search by noting results come from multiple search engines combined. With no sibling tools to contrast against, this is maximum clarity.

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 states the tool is 'ideal for general queries, news, articles and online content', which provides clear usage context. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives, but that is reasonable since no sibling tools are listed.

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