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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that results are keyword-scored and return a brief answer, which adds behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it omits ranking semantics, result format details, and pagination behavior — gaps that matter for an unannotated search tool.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and then documents parameters. The 'Args' style is structured, but the example for 'query' is somewhat specific and could be more generalizable.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values. However, without annotations, it should do more to describe safety, authorization requirements, or rate limits. The core purpose and parameters are covered, but behavioral completeness is still limited.

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 provides an example for 'query' and the default for 'top_k', which adds meaning for both parameters. However, it doesn't clarify whether query supports natural language, boolean operators, or exact phrases — details that would help an agent invoke it correctly.

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?

States a specific verb (检索/retrieve) and resource (合规问答/compliance Q&A), plus a scope hint (returns most relevant items with brief answers). Siblings include get_answer, list_questions, and standard_info, but the description doesn't explicitly differentiate from these — it's clear but not sibling-aware.

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?

No guidance on when to use this search tool versus siblings like get_answer or list_questions. The description implies it's for keyword-based retrieval, but there's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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