Two tools with clear verb-noun naming (search, fetch_content) and basic descriptions. Both have input schemas with type definitions and parameter descriptions. However, descriptions are minimal (under 100 chars), lack context on when to use each tool, and output schemas are not documented. No error handling guidance, no pagination support for search results, and no tool annotations. Schemas are present but sparse, parameters lack constraints (e.g., max_results has no bounds documented). Missing idempotency hints and recovery guidance.
Fetch and extract text content from a webpage
Search the web using DuckDuckGo
Output schemas not documented. LLMs cannot infer what fields search() and fetch_content() return, forcing them to guess downstream field names and risk broken tool chains.
Descriptions are too brief (40-45 chars). 'Search the web using DuckDuckGo' lacks context on when to use search vs fetch_content, what format results are in, or whether results are paginated. Baseline for A+ tools is 50-200 chars.
No pagination support documented. search() accepts max_results but no offset/page/cursor parameter. If DuckDuckGo returns 100+ results, the tool caps at max_results with no way to fetch the next batch. Large result sets will blow context windows.
Parameter constraints missing. max_results and max_length have no documented min/max bounds. LLMs could pass 0, negative, or absurdly large values (e.g., max_length=999999999) causing timeouts or memory exhaustion.
Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | D | 50 | <=2025-11-25 | v2 |
No error handling guidance. If a URL is unreachable, the query returns no results, or rate limits are hit, the tool provides no recovery hints. LLMs cannot distinguish retryable errors from user-fixable ones.