search

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it aggregates from 200+ engines, returns multiple result types (answers, suggestions, corrections, infoboxes), and states that results are cached for 60 seconds. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds valuable information: result types, usage tips, exclusions with alternatives, and caching. No redundant or wasteful 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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, its scope, when to use it, how to focus results, what it returns, and its limitations. The output schema covers return values, so the description does not need to duplicate that.

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 schema fully describes each parameter. The description adds minimal but useful guidance about two parameters ('categories' and 'pages'), but does not significantly enhance the parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Search the web using SearXNG metasearch engine.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating it is not for autocomplete suggestions or discovering engines/categories, naming the correct alternatives. This differentiates it from 'autocomplete' and 'engine_info' tools.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it states to use 'categories' to focus on specific content types, 'pages' for more results, and explicitly says it is not suitable for autocomplete or discovering engines, directing users to alternative tools. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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