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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly indicates this is a read-only search operation and that it returns snippets, which is useful. However, it omits details like pagination, result ordering, snippet format, whether search is exact or fuzzy, and any auth/rate-limit requirements. The description adds some value but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 two concise sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded and the query-length guidance is relevant and practical. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides basic purpose and a tip, but leaves the reader uncertain about the response shape, pagination, and the meaning of 'limit'. It is minimally viable but lacks details that would make an agent fully confident in invoking it correctly across varied scenarios.

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 only 33%, so most parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by explaining the query behavior ('中文查询词建议不少于 3 个字') and the default scope ('跨全部作品'). It does not explain the 'limit' parameter, which remains completely undefined in both schema and description. Thus the description adds some meaning but does not fully compensate for the schema gaps.

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 states a specific verb '检索' (search), a specific resource '章节正文' (chapter content), and a clear scope '跨全部作品' (across all works). It also mentions the return type '命中片段' (matching snippets), which clearly differentiates it from sibling read/list tools.

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 that this tool is for searching across all works rather than reading a specific novel, which gives some context. It also provides a practical guideline about Chinese query length. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings like read_novel_fulltext or list_novels, nor does it mention the novel_id option for scoped searches.

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