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 discloses key behavioral traits: it uses SearXNG, returns up to 10 results with specific fields, and performs searches. However, it misses details like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's read-only/destructive—important for a tool with no annotations.

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 and efficient: one sentence states the action and engine, another specifies the output format. Every sentence adds critical information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick understanding.

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's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete: it covers purpose, engine, and output details. However, it lacks behavioral context like rate limits or error handling, and with no output schema, it doesn't fully explain return values beyond a high-level summary.

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%, providing full parameter documentation. The description adds value by summarizing the tool's purpose and output, but doesn't elaborate on parameter meanings beyond what the schema already covers. With 5 parameters, the baseline is 3 due to high coverage; it earns a 4 for contextualizing the overall search process.

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 specific action ('Search the web using SearXNG') and resource ('the web'), with precise output details ('Returns up to 10 relevant results with titles, URLs, snippets, and metadata'). It distinguishes itself by specifying the search engine (SearXNG) and result format, which is comprehensive for a standalone tool.

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 implies usage for web searches with result details, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other search methods or tools). With no sibling tools, this is less critical, but it lacks any context on optimal scenarios or limitations.

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