searxng_web_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it uses the SearXNG API but no further behavioral details like pagination, result limits, or output format. This is adequate but not rich, consistent with the caliber where annotations carry most load.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then followed by use cases. Every sentence earns its place, with zero wasted words or redundancy.

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 params, 2 enums) and lack of output schema, the description provides sufficient context for typical use cases, covering the intent and scope. It doesn't explain return values, but the readOnly hint and param names compensate. A small gap in behavioral details (e.g., pagination) prevents a 5.

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 all 5 parameters (query, pageno, language, safesearch, time_range) are already documented in the schema with descriptions. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'performs a web search using the SearXNG API', identifying both the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling web_url_read by focusing on broad queries rather than reading a specific URL, making it 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?

The description provides clear usage context: 'ideal for general queries, news, articles, and online content' and 'Use this for broad information gathering, recent events, or when you need diverse web sources.' It implies when to use but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the sibling, which keeps it just under a 5.

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