web_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions the source (SearXNG) and freshness, but omits behavioral details such as rate limits, pagination, or return format. The output schema exists, but the description does not explain what the tool returns.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is arguably too concise; it could include more detail without becoming verbose. Still, for a short description, it earns a high score for efficiency.

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 tool has 4 parameters (2 required), no annotations, and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks context about when to use this over other search tools, parameter meanings, and what the output contains. The existence of an output schema does not excuse the lack of behavioral context in the description.

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 0%, yet the description provides no explanations for any of the 4 parameters. The purpose of 'reasoning', valid categories, and max_results limit are left undocumented. The description adds no value beyond the schema's parameter names and types.

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 action (gather fresh web search results) and resource (web, via SearXNG). The name 'web_search' matches the description. However, it does not differentiate from sibling search tools like 'search_images' or 'package_search', so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'Use this first' gives a weak usage hint about sequencing, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. Given the siblings, more guidance would help an agent decide between this and other search tools.

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