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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose the filter dimensions and what comes back (nickname, specialties, reference price, order count) — return data the schema cannot provide since there is no output schema. It stays silent on pagination behavior and result ordering, which matter for a paged list 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?

Three sentences: scope, filter/return capability, then trigger condition. Front-loaded and every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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?

A six-parameter, zero-required search tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema; the description supplies the missing return-value summary and the invocation trigger. Only pagination/ordering behavior remains unstated, which is a minor gap.

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 every parameter is already documented, including examples for city and specialty and the 1-20 range for pageSize. The description largely restates those examples and adds no new semantics such as precedence between keyword and specialty.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource (检索…向导/地陪/导游资源) and names the platform scope, so an agent immediately knows this is a guide-directory search. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_lines or get_guide_detail, but the search-vs-detail distinction is inferable.

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?

States an explicit trigger — call this when the user wants a guide, local companion, or private escort. It gives no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. use get_guide_detail after picking one), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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