search

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the two-step payment protocol, the requirement for identical query on retry, and that each payment buys exactly one search. It covers the entire behavior needed to use the tool correctly.

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 a single dense paragraph of about 4 sentences, front-loaded with the key feature 'No-KYC web search, paid per query'. It is clear but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for even quicker parsing.

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?

While the description explains the usage process well, it lacks details about the output format (beyond 'returns JSON results') and error scenarios (e.g., invalid preimage, expired invoice). Given no output schema, more information about the return structure would improve completeness.

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 already describes both parameters (query and payment_preimage) with 100% coverage. The description adds valuable context about the two-step process, that query must be identical, and that payment_preimage is omitted on first call, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 it's a web search tool with a unique payment mechanism via Lightning (L402). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_service_info' which likely provides service info, not search.

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 a step-by-step process for using the tool: first call with query to get invoice, pay, then second call with query and payment_preimage. It explicitly says to omit payment_preimage on first call and to use a wallet tool like nwc_pay_invoice. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the process is well-defined.

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