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: only abstracts and links are available, not full text, plus a warning not to speculate beyond the abstract. It also lists return fields. It omits pagination/rate-limit details, so it is strong but not complete.

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 front-loaded and well-structured with ★ markers for critical constraints. It is slightly verbose with the '数千篇存量，执业律师主笔' credibility note, but every sentence still serves routing or behavioral guidance.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it covers purpose, return contents, usage conditions, an alternative tool, and a critical limitation about full-text availability.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both q and limit thoroughly, including the '不要填整句话' constraint and examples. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource (检索本站原创法律文章) and enumerates exactly what is returned (标题、摘要、栏目、发布日期、原文链接). It also distinguishes itself from search_guides explicitly, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use cases (用户问某个法律问题、想找分析或说法、问「有没有写过……」) and an explicit when-not-to-use case with the alternative named (问「怎么办/要带什么材料/走哪些步骤/有没有范本」请用 search_guides). Nothing is left to inference.

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