spraay_search_qna

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds behavioral context: web searching, content extraction, answer synthesis, citations, and cost ($0.02 USDC). This goes beyond annotations but could include rate limits or data freshness details.

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?

Three concise sentences with front-loaded purpose: first sentence states the primary action. No redundant information. Efficient and clear.

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 output schema exists, description needn't detail return values. Covers the main action, result format (synthesized answer with citations), and cost. Could include guidance on query formulation for optimal results, but sufficient for typical 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, including an example for query and enum options for topic. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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?

Description clearly states it answers questions by searching the web and generating a synthesized answer with citations. It distinguishes itself from generic search (spraay_search_web) by focusing on Q&A and synthesis, but does not explicitly differentiate from summarization tools like spraay_summarize.

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?

Indicates it is 'great for research and fact-checking' and mentions cost, implying usage context. However, it does not specify when not to use, nor does it reference alternative tools like spraay_search_web for raw results or spraay_summarize for summarization.

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