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

注解声明了 destructiveHint=true 和 readOnlyHint=false，但描述没有解释为什么搜索工具具有破坏性，也未涉及认证、使用限制或成本。它只增加了地区/语言过滤上下文，并未在注解之外提供任何明确的行为信息。

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?

单句格式直接说明工具及其触发条件，没有冗余。虽然略显简略，但每个部分都发挥了作用。

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?

对于一个涉及十参数的搜索工具，具有开放世界和破坏性注解且没有输出模式，描述缺少关键信息：返回什么内容、结果如何分页、是否存在使用限制，或者为什么该工具标记为破坏性。它并不可靠地完整。

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?

模式描述覆盖率为 100%，因此所有十个参数都在模式内部有完整说明。描述仅提及关键词、地区、语言，这重复了模式中已有的信息，没有为模式之外提供额外含义。

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?

描述清楚地说明了该工具通过 Yandex 执行网页搜索，并按关键词、地区、语言进行过滤。它隐含地将自己与兄弟搜索工具（google_search、bing_search、duckduckgo_search）区分开来，但没有明确表达这种区别。

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?

描述指定了触发条件（当用户需要 Yandex 公开网页搜索时），这比完全没有指导要好，但它从未指出何时应使用 Yandex 而不是其他兄弟搜索引擎，也没有排除任何情况。

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