searxng_web_search

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adds that it 'Calls an external SearXNG instance; availability depends on the SEARXNG_URL configuration.' This discloses a meaningful operational constraint not present in the annotations. It also warns about the exact parameter name, which is useful.

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?

Four short sentences, each with a distinct purpose: function, critical parameter note, usage tips, and follow-up action. No fluff, and the most important information (what it does and the critical parameter) is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description reasonably explains the return format ('title, URL, and content snippet'), external dependency, pagination, narrowing options, and follow-up to web_url_read. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but with read-only/open-world annotations and a well-covered schema, this is adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description emphasizes the required `query` parameter and hints at combining `time_range` and `language`, but most parameter details are already in the schema. It adds minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Searches the web using SearXNG and returns a list of results...' It clearly differentiates from siblings by explicitly directing follow-up to web_url_read for full text, and the search-vs-suggestions distinction is obvious from the tool names.

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?

Provides concrete usage guidance: 'Use pageno to paginate results; combine time_range and language to narrow scope' and 'follow up with web_url_read' for full-text reading. It does not explicitly compare with the sibling searxng_search_suggestions, but the main use case and a clear alternative (web_url_read) are covered.

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