surf_sense_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing. It implies a read-only retrieval but does not disclose that results are routed through a chosen connector (including heavier operations like web_crawl), nor any auth, rate-limit, or result-shape behavior.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, but that brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than disciplined economy. It is not front-loaded with any decision-relevant 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?

For a tool whose entire behavior depends on a 10-value connector enum, the description is far too thin. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum explain the connector choices and expected return; it does neither.

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 only 50%, and the undocumented parameter is the important one: 'connector' is a 10-value enum with no description in the schema and no mention in the tool description. The description fails to explain that this parameter selects the search backend, leaving a major semantic gap unfilled.

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 verb+resource ("Search the web") is specific enough to understand the operation, but "using SurfSense" is vendor branding that adds nothing. It gives no differentiation from siblings and says nothing about the multi-source nature of the search (Google, Reddit, YouTube, Amazon, etc.), which is the defining trait of this tool.

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, when not to, or what alternatives exist. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema, with no stated context or exclusions.

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