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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains that only published articles are searched, matches are case-insensitive, returns truncated summaries, and directs to get_article for full content. It also gives context on the forum's nature and date range. It does not mention pagination behavior or edge cases like zero results, but overall it is forthright about what the tool does.

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 concise and effective. It front-loads the purpose and then adds contextual details (forum type, date range) that help the agent set expectations. The pointer to get_article is a useful addition. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing value.

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 toolbox with this complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It explains what is searched, the style of the forum, the likely date range, and what the response contains (summaries with truncated content). It also routes to get_article for more detail. Minor gaps like error handling or pagination edge cases are not critical for a search tool.

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 already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: the query matches title AND body, is case-insensitive, and Traditional Chinese is recommended. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'Keyword to search for' and clarifies expected input language and matching behavior, justifying a 4.

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 clearly states the action (search forum articles), the resource (published articles on a Taiwan community forum), and the matching criteria (keyword in title/body, case-insensitive). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_article (which fetches full content) and list_articles (which lists without a keyword), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a clear trigger (keyword search) and explicitly points to get_article for full content, which is a strong usage hint. It also advises using Traditional Chinese keywords for better results. However, it does not explicitly contrast with list_articles (for browsing without a keyword) or state when search is inappropriate, leaving some inference to the agent.

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