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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It indicates a retrieval/search operation, which implies read-only behavior, but it does not disclose any limitations, result format, pagination, or access concerns.

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 extremely concise, containing only the essential information. Every word adds value, and the core operation is immediately clear. There is no unnecessary repetition or 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, a one-line description is close to sufficient, but the absence of annotations, output schema, and usage alternatives leaves some ambiguity. An agent can likely call the tool successfully, but it has very little context about expected results or edge cases.

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?

The schema provides only the parameter name 'query' with no description, so schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates somewhat by clarifying that the query is a keyword used to search posts, but it does not provide additional detail such as examples or expected format.

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 '关键词检索帖子' clearly states a keyword search over posts, giving a specific verb and resource. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'forum_read_posts' or other forum tools.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you need to search posts by keyword. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor any reference to alternatives such as forum_read_posts for listing/reading posts.

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