Search the web through a YaCy peer

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial behavior beyond that — the P2P propagation of 'global', the meaning of the 'verified'/'trust'/'tags' fields, no API key/central service, and an explicit prompt-injection warning treating titles and snippets as untrusted data. This is exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then layers in scope, result semantics, and the security caveat in order of importance. Every sentence carries weight, though the security warning is dense enough that a slightly tighter phrasing would help.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing what results carry ('verified', 'trust', 'tags') and their trust level. Combined with the search-scope and safety guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter (count, query, waitMs, resource) is described there, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the global/local semantics that the schema already documents, adding little parameter-level detail beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full-text web search on your own YaCy peer') and immediately scopes it against siblings by naming crawl_site as the tool for adding sites. An agent can distinguish this from get_index_status, list_peers, and other siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explains the global-vs-local resource decision (the main usage fork) and routes site-adding to crawl_site. It gives clear context for when this tool applies but offers no explicit 'when not to use' clause, so it falls just short of the top tier.

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