search_duckduckgo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions a timeout parameter, it doesn't describe what the tool actually returns (search results format, pagination, error behavior), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or any other operational characteristics. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 - just one sentence that states the purpose and lists parameters. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. While efficient, it could benefit from slightly more context to be truly helpful to an agent.

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?

For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the search results will be in, what information is returned, or how to interpret the output. Given the complexity of search operations and the lack of structured output documentation, this description leaves too many questions unanswered.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value by restating parameter names and types that are already clear in the schema. It does provide the default value for timeout, but this is also in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 the verb ('search') and resource ('DuckDuckGo'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many search engine siblings (like search_bing_search, search_google_search), which would be needed for a perfect 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 specific search tool versus the many alternatives available on the server. There's no mention of DuckDuckGo's unique characteristics (privacy-focused, different result ranking) that would help an agent choose between search_duckduckgo and search_google_search or other search tools.

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