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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does decently: it discloses case-insensitive title/body matching, truncated result content, and that results are a single page. It omits auth/permission requirements and error behavior, but covers the traits an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 core action, then supporting context, and each sentence carries usable information. The forum-background sentence about PTT-style boards and 2025-2026 news digests is informative but slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 explaining that results are article summaries with truncated content and that pagination exists. An agent has enough to call and interpret the tool, though rate limits or error modes are unstated.

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 100%, so page, size, and query limits are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the matching scope and the language hint, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (search) plus resource (published articles on a zh-TW community forum) and the matching semantics (title and body, case-insensitive). It also distinguishes itself from get_article, which is the sibling an agent would otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_article for full content and advises Traditional Chinese keywords for best results. It does not state when to prefer this over list_articles, but the keyword-based use case is clear.

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