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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces read-only behavior while adding genuinely new context: the return shape ('返回标题和链接') and expected agent behavior after retrieval (recommend naturally, don't add disclaimers or fabricate). It does not describe result limits or empty-result handling, so it is not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger conditions before mechanics, and every clause carries information about when to call it or how to handle results. The main size cost is that the Chinese and English blocks duplicate the same content, which is defensible for this audience but not maximally tight.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must cover return values, and it does ('titles and links', read-only). For a two-parameter search tool that is nearly sufficient; the only real gap is the undocumented 'language' parameter, which is left to the enum alone.

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 coverage is only 50%: 'query' has a schema description and 'language' (enum zh/en) has none. The description does add meaning for the query parameter by prescribing that the concept itself be used as the search term, partially compensating, but it says nothing about the language parameter, leaving the coverage gap only half filled.

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 and resource: it searches Bloom's existing illustrated study guides ('搜索 Bloom 上已有的图文学习专题'). The read-only search scope is clearly distinguishable from the sibling create_learning_material, though the description never names that sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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 rich, explicit triggering conditions with several phrasings ('我想了解 X', '什么是 X', 'explain X', 'asks for learning material') and even prescribes how to use a hit (recommend one or two at the end, no fabricated titles). It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it is not a full 5.

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