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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about bilingual tags and the source collection, but does not cover result format, whether results are paginated, or returned fields. Adds some value beyond annotations but not rich behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the tag example is compact. No wasted words.

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?

Covers what the tool searches, the source, and bilingual tag semantics, which is sufficient for a read-only search tool with annotations. Missing details about query behavior and result shape, but with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete for invocation.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaningful detail about bilingual tags (e.g., agent/Agent, education/教育学习) and the ability to combine hackathon and tag filters, which supports the tag and hackathon parameters. However, it does not clarify the query parameter or how limit interacts with result counts.

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 (hackathon projects/works) with the source (/works on 黑123), and clarifies it is distinct from hackathon search by naming the axis (projects filtered by hackathon and/or tag). The agent can distinguish it from sibling search_hackathons and search_team_posts without opening the schema.

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 implies usage through 'by hackathon and/or tag' but does not explicitly say when to use this vs search_hackathons or search_team_posts, nor when not to use it. The context is inferable but not spelled out.

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