tor_search_onion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool searches an external engine (Ahmia.fi) and returns specific result fields, but does not mention potential limitations, rate limits, network requirements, or behavior on failed searches.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and result. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundant or filler content.

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 simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return shape and purpose. It could mention default limit behavior, but the schema covers that. Overall sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 100% for both parameters (query and limit), so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The description confirms the overall purpose but does not enrich parameter meaning significantly.

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 specifies the action ('Search for .onion sites') and the resource/engine ('using Ahmia.fi search engine'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tor_fetch_onion or tor_scrape_onion by stating it returns search result listings (titles, URLs, descriptions).

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?

It implies usage for searching .onion sites via Ahmia.fi, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions/edge cases. The description gives a clear context but no comparative guidance against siblings.

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