search_web

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search action and optional filters, but does not describe return format, pagination, or any side effects or permissions. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: a two-sentence summary that states the core action and then optional filters. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the core purpose and two filtering options but fails to mention language and max_results, and does not indicate the shape of the returned results. The overall context is not adequately fleshed out.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'engines' and 'categories' (listing example category values), but omits 'language' and 'max_results' entirely. This leaves two of five parameters undocumented, resulting in incomplete semantic coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource ('the web via SearXNG'), clearly conveying a general web search tool. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by its broad scope, while sibling names like search_news and search_images indicate specialized variants.

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 mentions optional filters (engines, categories) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus search_news or search_images, nor any exclusions or alternative recommendations. The usage context is only implied, not explicit.

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