slc_jiapu

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits, but it only states the search action. It does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements (the API key is only in the schema), output format, pagination, error handling, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for an agent assessing safety and expected behavior.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the core purpose and the two search fields efficiently. Every word contributes value, making it appropriately concise for a simple search tool.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must be more self-sufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, the scope of the 'data1' dataset, how to use the API key, or how this tool relates to sibling search tools. An agent would have to infer or seek additional information to invoke it correctly, making the description incomplete for a tool of even moderate complexity.

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?

The description adds some meaning to the undocumented title and familyname parameters by explicitly stating they are search criteria. However, it does not explain matching behavior (exact, partial, pinyin), whether both can be combined, or required formats. The key parameter is described in the schema but nothing extra is provided in the description. Overall, the description partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a genealogy catalog search ('家谱谱目检索'), which is a specific resource and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as poetry, couplets, and other collection-specific searches by naming the exact domain. The verb '检索' (search) is precise and the scope is evident.

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 should be used when searching for genealogy records, and it mentions the searchable fields (title/surname). However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like slc_datasets or slc_sparql, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is present but implicit.

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