search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal the SearXNG-first fallback to keyless Tavily and the JSON return fields, which is useful. However, it does not mention failure modes, rate limits, result ordering, or how the limit parameter affects 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?

The description is very short, front-loaded with the core operation, and every sentence carries relevant information. The fallback behavior and output shape are packed into two compact sentences with no filler.

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 the simple schema and presence of an output schema, the description covers the main search behavior and return format. However, it omits limit semantics and usage guidance versus the sibling tool, leaving an agent to infer those details.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implies 'query' via '搜索网页', but it never explains 'limit' or how it constrains the result set. The output format is mentioned, but neither parameter gets meaningful semantic detail.

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 states '搜索网页' (search web pages) and specifies the return format as JSON with title/url/description. It identifies a concrete operation with a resource, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tool 'extract', so it stops short of a 5.

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 versus the sibling 'extract', nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The intent is implied by the name and '搜索网页', but the description never states usage conditions or alternative selection.

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