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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool returns 'source-backed results and pageCount', but it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior when no query/filter is provided. The disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The action and resource are front-loaded, followed by a compact statement of return contents. It does not repeat schema constraints or add filler.

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 six optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation surface: what is searched, the filter/sort dimensions, and what is returned. The only notable gap is the lack of detail about the shape of individual result objects, but this is partially mitigated by the 'source-backed results' phrasing.

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?

With only 17% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by naming keyword, category, tag, and sort order as search axes. However, it does not explain the meaning of sort values like 'usefulness' or 'confidence', nor does it add semantics for page/limit behavior, leaving a clear gap.

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 names an explicit operation ('search and page') and resource ('full niubiagent archive'), and lists the search dimensions: keyword, category, tag, and sort order. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_signal or get_latest_signals, which are about retrieving specific or recent signals rather than searching an archive.

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 you need to search and page through the full archive. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the choice between this tool and get_latest_signals/get_signal to inference.

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