網頁搜尋

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does mention two important limitations (no JS, no reading result page bodies) and that it returns summaries, which is useful. However, it omits other potentially relevant behaviors such as rate limits, auth requirements, or whether results are cached. Given it is a read-only search, some of these may be less critical, but the disclosure is incomplete.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('DuckDuckGo 公開網頁搜尋') before stating the return format and limitations. Every clause adds value, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers the essential return format (title/URL/summary) and key limitations. With no output schema, this suffices for an agent to understand what it will receive. It does not specify the exact JSON structure of the results, but that may be inferred. For a search tool with a straightforward result set, the description is nearly complete.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description provides no additional meaning for the 'query' and 'limit' parameters. The description does not explain that 'query' is the search terms or that 'limit' caps the number of results. Since the schema itself only provides type and constraints (and 'limit' has a default), the description fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving parameters only partially understood.

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 states a specific verb ('搜尋' = search), a specific provider (DuckDuckGo), and what it returns (titles/URLs/summaries). It also explicitly states what it does NOT do (no JS execution, no reading of page bodies), which clearly differentiates it from tools like web_fetch. This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings.

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 implies usage for web searches but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like web_fetch (which would retrieve full content). It states limitations (no JS, no page body) that hint at when NOT to use it for full-page retrieval, but no explicit guidance or exclusions are given. The context is clear but not proactively stated.

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