search_deepseek

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a timeout parameter which hints at potential latency considerations, but doesn't describe what the tool actually does (is it conversational AI, search, or something else?), what kind of responses to expect, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 lists parameters. While this is efficient, it may be too brief given the lack of other contextual information. The structure is straightforward but doesn't follow a typical pattern of stating purpose first then details. Every word serves a purpose, but the description might benefit from more complete information.

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 complexity of an AI assistant tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what kind of interactions it supports, or how it differs from similar tools. For a tool that presumably generates AI responses, the description should provide more context about capabilities, limitations, and expected outputs.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters (query and timeout). The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what's in the schema - it simply repeats the parameter names and types. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 states 'DeepSeek AI assistant' which indicates the tool interacts with DeepSeek, but it's vague about what specific action it performs. 'Search' in the name suggests querying, but the description doesn't explicitly state whether this is for information retrieval, conversation, or another purpose. It distinguishes from some siblings by mentioning DeepSeek specifically, but doesn't clearly differentiate from other AI assistant tools like search_chatgpt or search_claude.

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. With multiple AI assistant/search tools available (search_chatgpt, search_claude, search_gemini, etc.), there's no indication of DeepSeek's specific strengths, use cases, or when it might be preferred over other options. The description only lists parameters without contextual usage information.

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