kagi_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Perform web search' which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with external dependencies.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential function without unnecessary details.

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 low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter usage, or result expectations, making it inadequate for a tool that interacts with an external web search service.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds no meaning beyond the schema—doesn't explain what 'query' should contain, how 'limit' affects results, or any parameter nuances. The schema defines types and constraints, but the description offers no semantic context.

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 ('Perform web search') and the resource/service ('using Kagi'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, with no sibling tools mentioned, it cannot demonstrate differentiation from alternatives, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or any contextual limitations. It simply states what the tool does without offering usage instructions.

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