search_searx

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'privacy protection' but doesn't explain what that entails (e.g., anonymous queries, no tracking). No mention of rate limits, result format, or potential side effects. The single sentence is insufficient for behavioral transparency.

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 sentence (10 words) that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is very concise, but for a tool with many parameters and siblings, a bit more context would improve usability without sacrificing conciseness.

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 complexity (7 parameters, many sibling tools, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks context about the categories available, the meta-search nature of Searx, and the existence of specialized versions (searx_image_search, searx_news_search). An agent may not understand how to best use or configure this 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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with good descriptions, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't relate parameters to the privacy claim or clarify usage contexts like when to set engines or categories.

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 it searches via Searx with privacy protection, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search siblings (e.g., search_brave, search_startpage) or from its image/news variants. The name 'search_searx' and the privacy mention provide a basic purpose, but lacking explicit scope like 'general web search' weakens distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_brave, search_ecosia, or the separate searx_image_search. The privacy mention is a hint but not actionable. With many sibling search tools, explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' is missing.

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