search

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds a small behavioral note (prioritizes fastest valid results) beyond what annotations state, but gives no detail on result structure, quota behavior, or failure modes. The safety profile is covered by annotations; the description adds only marginal behavioral context.

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?

A single compact sentence with zero filler, front-loading the core purpose before the behavioral qualifier. It is efficient, though it borders on restating the tool name; the 'fastest valid results' clause justifies its existence. Appropriately sized for a tool whose schema carries the parameter details.

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 is a general web search with a 100%-covered schema and read-only annotations, the description is minimally adequate. Since there is no output schema, the description might have mentioned the return format, and it does not explain result structure or pagination behavior beyond what 'fastest valid results' implies. An agent can call the tool correctly from the schema, but the return semantics are left unexplained.

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%: all 8 parameters, including the required query, have descriptions with defaults, ranges, and supported value lists (e.g., engines, categories, safesearch levels). The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema fully documents semantics.

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 names a specific verb (search) and resource (web via SearXNG), and adds the behavioral qualifier 'returns fastest valid results'. While concise, it clearly conveys what the tool does. No siblings are listed, so there is no differentiation burden; the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives or circumstances that would make another tool preferable. The 'fastest valid results' clause hints at intent but does not instruct an agent on selection or preconditions. With no sibling tools the alternative-routing gap is muted, but still zero usage direction is provided.

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