thunder_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 usefully discloses the fallback order (ddg->bing->google), browser-true TLS handshake, and that the result names the engine used, but it does not describe failure behavior, rate limits, or broader return structure.

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 front-loaded with the core action and remains compact. The parenthetical engine list and TLS handshake detail are relevant and earn their place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides important context about engine selection and fallback but does not explain the limit parameter or result shape beyond naming the engine. It is adequate but has clear gaps for a search tool.

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%, so the description should compensate for all three parameters. It clarifies the engine enum and auto fallback, and query is implied by 'Search the web,' but the limit parameter is not mentioned at all.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the web' with Google, Bing, or DuckDuckGo. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling page-interaction tools such as thunder_open, thunder_read, and thunder_click, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 explains engine fallback behavior but gives no guidance on when to use thunder_search instead of sibling tools like thunder_open or thunder_read. It also omits prerequisites, exclusions, or other usage conditions.

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