SearXNG Server

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe, external operations. The description adds value by implying the tool is for 'further information retrieving,' suggesting it's used after initial discovery (e.g., post-search). It doesn't contradict annotations, and while it doesn't detail rate limits or auth needs, it provides useful context beyond the structured hints.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that directly state the tool's function and usage context without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place by adding value (purpose and implied guidance).

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and hints at usage context, but could improve by mentioning extraction features or output format. Without an output schema, some details on return values are missing, but annotations help mitigate this.

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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond the schema, such as examples or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 purpose: 'Read the content from an URL' specifies the verb (read) and resource (URL content). It distinguishes from the sibling 'searxng_web_search' by focusing on content extraction rather than search. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the extraction capabilities (like section or paragraphRange) in the purpose statement.

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 provides implied usage guidance: 'Use this for further information retrieving to understand the content of each URL' suggests it's for post-search content analysis, contrasting with the search-focused sibling. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives, or exclusions (e.g., when not to use it for dynamic content).

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