net_syphon_search_web

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing that returned text is untrusted data, advising against following its instructions, requiring escaping when rendering, and warning not to put secrets in queries. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then return behavior, then security warnings. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The description covers the most safety-critical context (untrusted data) and basic purpose, but leaves parameter interactions and filtering semantics unexplained. Given the output schema exists, return values don't need description, but parameter coverage is a clear gap.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate for the six undocumented parameters. It only clarifies the query parameter (plain-text, no secrets) and ignores start_date, end_date, time_range, max_results, include_domains, and search_category semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find web pages for a plain-text query.' It immediately clarifies the tool's scope and contrasts with page content retrieval, which distinguishes it from the sibling net_syphon_get_pages.

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 makes clear the tool returns links and previews, not page content or verified evidence, which implies when to use it and when not to. It does not explicitly name the sibling as the alternative, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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