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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the ranking model (title weighted, then tags/categories, summary as fallback) plus the fact that results are returned with scores. It omits any statement about read-only behavior, rate limits, or pagination semantics, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering purpose, search scope, ranking behavior, and return content, with the parenthetical detail earning its place. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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, so the description usefully states that results come back as a hit list with scores. Combined with the fully documented parameters, this is nearly complete for a simple search tool, though result shape and paging behavior could be spelled out further.

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%: both query (space-separated multi-word) and limit (default 10, max 30) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that search is keyword-based and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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) and resource (全站文章), and scopes it as keyword-based site-wide search, which distinguishes it from the single-item get_article and the browsing list_articles. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 搜索 (search) – the agent can infer it is for keyword lookups rather than direct retrieval or listing. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no reference to list_articles as the alternative for browsing, leaving routing to inference.

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