search_duckduckgo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a timeout parameter with a default value, which hints at potential delays, but doesn't describe what the tool actually returns (search results format), error conditions, rate limits, or privacy implications (DuckDuckGo's focus). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first followed by brief parameter notes. Every sentence earns its place: the first establishes the tool's function, and the second efficiently lists parameters. There's zero waste or redundancy.

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 (search operation with timeout), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., search results format, links, snippets), error handling, or how it differs from sibling search tools. The description provides basic parameter info but misses critical context for effective use.

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%, with both parameters (query and timeout) fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, merely restating parameter names and basic types. It doesn't provide additional context about query formatting, timeout implications, or search result limitations. 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 tool's purpose: 'DuckDuckGo search' specifies both the verb (search) and resource (DuckDuckGo). It distinguishes from siblings by naming the specific search engine, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other search tools like search_bing_search or search_google_search. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 sibling search tools (e.g., search_bing_search, search_google_search, search_chatgpt), there's no indication of DuckDuckGo's specific use cases, advantages, or limitations compared to others. 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.