seekr_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool performs web queries and finds current information, which implies it's a read-only operation without destructive effects. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or specific behavioral traits like pagination or error handling. The description adds basic context but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, lists usage scenarios, and ends with a clear call-to-action for the sibling tool. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (a web query tool with 2 parameters), the description provides good context on usage and sibling tool relationship. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details like rate limits or error handling, slightly reducing completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (query and num) with descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as query formatting examples or result interpretation. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Query for information using Google query engine' and 'performs web queries to find current information, news, and diverse content.' It specifies the verb (query) and resource (web information via Google). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool seekr_prism beyond mentioning their relationship, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Use this for: current events, news, product information, troubleshooting, recent developments, and real-time information.' It also specifies when to use an alternative: 'After getting query results, use seekr_prism to get detailed content from specific URLs.' This clearly distinguishes when to use this tool versus its sibling.

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