search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful traits: no API key required, plus the semantics of region and time_range values. It says nothing about rate limiting, result freshness, pagination, or failure modes. Return shape is at least covered by the output schema, which lowers the bar.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact operator cheat-sheet and an Args block that adds value beyond the schema. The Args block partially restates schema field names, but each line contributes semantics, so waste is minimal.

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?

All five parameters are explained and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Remaining gaps are minor operational details (rate limits, result freshness, pagination) that an agent could still 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?

Schema coverage is 0% for 5 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does: every parameter is documented with meaning and format, including max_results bounds (1-25, default 10), region codes (wt-wt/us-en/uk-en), and the d/w/m/y codes for time_range that the bare schema does not explain.

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 ('Search the web via DuckDuckGo') plus a concrete distinguishing trait (no API key needed). It implicitly separates itself from 'fetch' (retrieve a known URL) and 'research' (deeper synthesis), but never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

Offers rich how-to guidance for querying (exact phrases, exclusions, site filters, operator combinations), which is genuinely useful. However it gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to the fetch and research siblings, so selection is left to inference.

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