华哥·鸣儿招投标问答

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a read-style search over a large national database that returns matching projects, but it does not cover authorization needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, data freshness, or result format, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 a single front-loaded paragraph that states the tool's identity and scope first, then capabilities, then example queries. It is appropriately sized, though the branding prefix and repeated filter list add minor redundancy rather than new information.

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?

Given a fully documented seven-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, database scope, filtering options, and typical usage questions. It does not explain the shape of returned project records, but for a search tool with 100% schema coverage the definition is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description restates the filter categories (keyword, province, city, industry, budget range) but adds no syntax, units, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 and resource: comprehensive intelligence search across a national bidding project database of 240k+ records, returning matching bid projects to aid bidding decisions. It also enumerates the supported filter dimensions (keyword, province, city, industry, budget range), making the tool's scope immediately clear even without siblings.

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?

Three concrete example questions show when to use the tool: finding social survey bid targets,信息化 projects in Hainan, and bids within a budget range. It gives clear positive usage context but does not state when not to use it, though no sibling alternatives exist to contrast with.

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