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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are ranked by relevance and include verbatim key-point excerpts plus links, and that the corpus is the 2025 revision; it stays silent on ranking behavior, empty-result handling, and coverage limits. That is solid but modest added value beyond the annotations.

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 key information (what it does, what it returns, the filters, examples) is front-loaded in two dense Chinese sentences with little waste. The trailing English sentence 'Search the standards by topic.' merely restates the opening and could be cut.

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, and the description compensates by naming the three return components: matching standard, key-point text, and link. For a four-parameter read-only search tool this is nearly complete; the remaining gap is that it does not say how results are ordered or what happens when there are no matches.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description raises it slightly by framing query as a single-sentence topic (用一句话) and by confirming that subject and stage act as filters while the query is free-text. It adds no format hints for the allowed stage values, such as 3-4/五年级/初中, beyond what the schema already gives.

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 names a specific verb (检索/semantic search) and resource (义务教育课程标准, 2025 修订版), and it states what comes back: the top-matching standards, the matched key-point text, and links. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from its siblings list_standards, get_standard, or find_textbook_chapter, so an agent must infer that this tool does ranked topic search rather than listing or fetching by id.

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?

Concrete example queries (「三年级科学里讲植物生长的课标」, 「初中物理 浮力」) make the intended input shape and the when-to-use context unmistakable, and the phrase 可按学科、学段筛选 signals the optional filters. There are no explicit exclusions or pointers to alternative tools for listing or fetching one standard by id.

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