search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it delivers: it discloses that pages fetches consecutively at ~50 items per page and sets explicit display conventions (Markdown table/list, full titles, no emoji because of encoding issues). This surfaces pagination behavior and output quirks the schema cannot convey, though it remains silent on auth or rate limits.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose first, then parameter meaning, then output formatting. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information (what is searched and how) is front-loaded.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: purpose, query syntax, pagination behavior, and presentation format. The unaddressed page parameter and the absence of any note on limits or errors are the remaining gaps, but the explicit display conventions partially compensate for the missing output schema.

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 thoroughly explains query with concrete Discourse syntax examples (order:latest, #分类, @用户, tags:, after:, in:title) and explains pages (consecutive pages, ~50 items each), but the page parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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 opens with '全量搜索 linux.do' (full-text search over linux.do), a specific verb plus resource, and the query-syntax detail makes the scope concrete. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, but the 'full search' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the listing tools (latest_topics, top_topics, category_topics).

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?

No guidance on when to choose this tool over its 12 siblings; it never names alternatives such as format_search or latest_topics, nor does it state exclusion conditions. The usage content present (query syntax, display conventions) is how-to instruction for invoking this tool, not tool-selection guidance.

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