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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond the purpose — no rate-limit, latency, or instance-behavior context — and the output schema handles return values, leaving this sentence with no incremental behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is tight, though its brevity is also the source of its missing guidance.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the core purpose adequately. It falls short only on routing guidance versus the sibling search tool, which an agent would benefit from.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'query' as a 'Partial search query'. The description's phrase 'search query autocomplete suggestions' mirrors that meaning without adding format, length, or example detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and resource ('search query autocomplete suggestions'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling searxng_web_search. It does not explicitly name the sibling to sharpen the contrast, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. An agent must infer from the word 'autocomplete' alone that this is for query-completion rather than result retrieval; searxng_web_search is never referenced.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and reach profile is covered. The description adds a useful but generic statement about output shape ('ranked results, instant answers, and query suggestions'), yet says nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, result ordering, or whether suggestion-vs-result content is separable.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, zero redundancy. Nothing could be cut without losing 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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values, and the annotation pair covers read-only/open-world semantics. What is missing is a one-line note on the search's relationship to searxng_suggest and any hint about pagination, which would make an already well-structured definition complete for a filter-rich search 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 description coverage is 100% and each of the 8 parameters carries its own description (engine names, BCP-47 language, category list, safesearch scale, time_range enum, max_results default). The description contributes no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Search the web through a SearXNG instance') and names the source system, so the core purpose is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling searxng_suggest — and its mention of 'query suggestions' as a return value arguably muddies that boundary rather than clarifying it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus searxng_suggest, nor any note about when to prefer it (e.g., retrieving documents vs. autocomplete). No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for the many filter parameters are offered.

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