websearch

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 that pages are loaded in parallel via BrowserOS with fallback to headless Chromium and plain HTTP fetch, and specifies the output format. This gives useful insight into performance and reliability, though it omits potential failure modes or error handling.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by implementation details and return format. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundant information.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the return format, parallelism, and fallback chain, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to know what to expect. It could mention potential latency, but the core behavior is well specified.

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 coverage is 100%, with both 'query' and 'n' described in the schema. The description adds little beyond the schema, as it only contextualizes 'n' as the count of top results. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 that this tool searches the web via SearXNG and returns the full body text of the top N results. The verb 'search' and resource 'the web' are specific, and the output structure is defined. Though no sibling tools exist, the description would distinguish it from other search variants.

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 context: this is a web search tool that fetches full text for results. It does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, but with no sibling tools listed, this is a minor gap. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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