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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context by disclosing which fields are matched (title, description, original author), but says nothing about result ordering, limits, pagination, or auth, which matter for a search endpoint.

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?

One compact sentence with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse rather than verbose, so length is not a problem here.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what is searched and how. It stops short of explaining result behavior or limits, leaving an agent to guess at what a response looks like.

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% for the single 'query' parameter, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the argument is a keyword string applied against titles, descriptions and authors, which is genuinely useful, but adds no syntax, matching-rule, or format detail.

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 (搜尋) and resource (網友分享的影片與貼文), and narrows the scope by naming the searched fields (標題、說明、原作者). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_share (single share) and list_new_shares (browsing), though it never names them explicitly.

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 phrase 用關鍵字搜尋 implies this is the tool for keyword-based lookup, which is usable context, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or comparison to list_new_shares or get_rankings. Usage must be inferred from the name and sibling set.

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