beacon_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the search engine (DuckDuckGo), the output ranking behavior, and the return format ('List of {"title", "url", "snippet"} objects'). It does not mention potential errors or rate limits, but for a simple search tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 well-structured: a concise opening sentence, a usage hint, and clear Args/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important purpose is front-loaded.

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 low complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the workflow with its sibling tool, parameter behavior, and return value shape, leaving no significant gaps.

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?

The schema provides only titles with no descriptions, so the description adds critical meaning: 'query: Search terms' and 'max_results: Max hits to return (1..20, default 5).' It clarifies the range and default, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's function: 'Search the web (DuckDuckGo) and return ranked results.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool beacon_fetch by explaining that this tool discovers URLs, while beacon_fetch reads content.

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?

Explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use this to discover URLs for a topic. Then call beacon_fetch on the most relevant URL to read its content.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and names the alternative for the next step.

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