search_onion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one useful behavioral fact not in annotations — the provider-key requirement. It says nothing about rate limits, result caps or pagination behavior, so it adds modest value beyond the structured fields.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and then the prerequisite. No waste, though the terseness comes at the cost of useful detail rather than being a virtue of tight editing.

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 return values need not be described. But for a paginated external search with 0% parameter documentation, the description omits pagination semantics, result scope, and any routing to the cache sibling; it is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it does not: neither 'query' nor 'page' is explained, and the paging/default behavior of page is left entirely undocumented. It adds no meaning beyond the bare schema property names.

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-plus-resource: 'Discover mentions and onion URLs through Onion Search Engine.' An agent can grasp what it returns. However it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as search_onion_cache or fetch_onion/crawl_onion, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 only guidance is the prerequisite 'Requires a provider key.' There is no statement of when to use this search versus search_onion_cache, crawl_onion or fetch_onion, and no indication of what happens without a key.

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