web_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'returns relevant results from multiple search engines combined,' adding useful behavioral context about result aggregation. However, it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving gaps for a search tool.

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 with the core purpose and efficiently lists key features in a single, well-structured sentence. Every phrase adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage (67%), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the tool's purpose and key features but lacks details on return format, error cases, or advanced usage, which could help an agent use it more effectively in varied contexts.

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 67%, and the description adds some value by mentioning support for 'multiple search categories, languages, time ranges and safe search filtering,' which aligns with parameters like categories, language, time_range, and safesearch. However, it doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already documents, such as details on query formatting or page behavior.

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 SearXNG' and specifies it's for 'general queries, news, articles and online content.' It provides a specific verb ('performs') and resource ('web search'), though it doesn't need to distinguish from siblings since none exist.

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 mentions it's 'ideal for general queries, news, articles and online content,' which implies usage context but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. No sibling tools exist, so differentiation isn't needed, but broader guidance is limited.

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