Websearch MCP Server

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

Annotations already cover key traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world). The description adds context about using DuckDuckGo and markdown output format, which is useful but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or error behaviors beyond annotations.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—front-loaded with the core action and output. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and output format, though it could benefit from more explicit sibling differentiation or behavioral details like rate limits.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., query purpose, result limits, region codes). Baseline 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 action ('Search the web') and the resource (web content via DuckDuckGo), with a specific output format ('return results as a markdown list'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on search-only functionality without fetching pages, though not explicitly named.

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 implies usage for web searches with markdown output, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'websearch_fetch_page' or 'websearch_search_and_fetch'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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