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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that results include public URLs and short excerpts. This tells the agent what kind of output to expect from a read-only search operation. It does not describe pagination or how workLimit and authorLimit affect result volume, but the annotations already establish safety and idempotency.

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 three short sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. The return behavior and the alternative tools are presented efficiently with no wasted wording.

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 simple read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the nature of the result excerpts, and the detail alternatives. It is mostly complete, though it omits how the two result limits shape the response and whether results are paginated or capped.

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 only 33%, and the description does not explain workLimit or authorLimit at all. It only reinforces the meaning of the query parameter by saying the search is by keyword across authors and works. The two limit parameters remain undocumented in both the schema and the description, so this dimension does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: search public classical Chinese poetry by keyword across authors and works. It distinguishes itself from detail-oriented siblings by directing users to get_work or get_author for details. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from list_works or list_authors, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 description gives clear usage context by positioning this as a keyword search across authors and works. It names get_work and get_author as the alternatives for detailed lookups, which helps route the agent correctly. It does not specify when to prefer list_works or list_authors instead, but the core when-to-use guidance is present.

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