kimi_search_basic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers almost nothing: no mention of result depth, rate limits, auth, whether content is fetched, or how it differs from the pro version. Only the verb "Search" weakly implies a read operation.

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?

It is a single short sentence, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. The second half is redundant with the tool name and the first half is too thin to be useful.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and no explanation of the basic-vs-pro distinction, the definition leaves an agent unable to call the tool correctly or choose it over its sibling. Nothing an agent needs is present.

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% across four parameters (text_query, limit, include_content, timeout_seconds), and the description adds no meaning or format hints for any of them. The agent gets no guidance on what include_content returns or how limit/timeout behave.

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 gives a verb+resource ("Search webpages"), so the basic action is clear. However, the trailing phrase "with Kimi Search Basic" merely restates the tool name and gives no distinguishing scope, and the sibling kimi_search_pro is never referenced. The agent cannot tell from the description what separates this from the pro variant.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no mention of the sibling kimi_search_pro as the alternative. Given a clearly named pro counterpart exists, the omission of any selection criteria is a notable gap.

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