search_posts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful constraints: it notes the maximum count is 30 and that pagination is supported via the page parameter. It also clarifies the scope as 'all posts.' However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether any authorization is required, or describe any side effects. While these are typical for a search tool, they are not explicitly disclosed. Given the absence of annotations, this is a moderate gap, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a compact parameter list. It front-loads the core purpose and uses a clear list format for parameters. Every sentence earns its place—there is no filler or redundancy. This is an exemplary model of brevity.

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 the existence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. The description covers the essential aspects: the action (search all posts), the key parameters with examples and constraints, and the pagination mechanism. It does not mention potential edge cases or advanced filters, but for a simple post search tool, the provided details are sufficient. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly without further clarification.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively: it explains the query parameter with examples (e.g., 「宇树」「红利策略」), states the count limit of 30, and clarifies that page is a page number. These details go well beyond the schema's bare type definitions and defaults. The only slight weakness is that the page parameter is only described as '页码' without indicating default behavior or range, but the default is already in the schema. Overall, it adds substantial meaning.

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 clear and specific verb-resource pair: 'search all Xueqiu posts' (全站搜索雪球帖子). It explicitly indicates the scope as '全站' (all site), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_post (specific post), get_user_posts (user-specific posts), and search_stock (stock search). An agent can immediately infer what this tool does and how it differs from similar 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—whenever a search across all posts is needed—but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion conditions. It lacks explicit statements like 'use this instead of get_user_posts when you need all posts' or 'do not use for specific post retrieval.' The implied usage is clear, but no formal guidance on alternatives is given, so it falls just short of a 5.

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