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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: any matching word returns results, results with more matching words rank higher, and both Chinese and English keywords are supported. It does not mention no-match outcomes or pagination, but the presence of an output schema covers return structure.

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 compact: two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and details on matching/ranking in the second. The parenthetical examples are useful but add some length; overall there is no fluff or redundant 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?

For a search tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: the database scope, result format (sourced entries), query syntax, and matching/ranking behavior. It does not discuss error conditions or edge cases, but these are not critical for typical search usage given the output schema and simple parameter set.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that multiple space-separated terms work with OR logic and that ranks improve with more matches, and by giving language support examples. This enriches the query parameter's semantics beyond its schema description.

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 action (keyword/topic search) over a defined resource (verified 'overseas×AI' intelligence database) and mentions the return of sourced entries. Examples and the OR/ranking behavior further clarify its function, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_latest_brief and list_topics.

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 when to use the tool—when a keyword/topic search is needed—and gives example queries, but it does not explicitly contrast it with get_latest_brief or list_topics or state when not to use it. Usage guidance is implied through the search purpose, but no exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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