search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Search" implies a read operation, but nothing is said about pagination behavior (limit/offset), output format modes (format param), result count caps, or what the results look like.

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?

Two terse fragments with no filler, and the kind enumeration is front-loaded. However, the extreme brevity leaves the definition under-specified rather than efficient; there is no wasted text but also very little substance.

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 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers only one parameter's value set. Query syntax, pagination, output format, and result shape are all left to inference, which is a substantial gap.

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%, and the description only enumerates valid values for kind (adding value since the schema has no enum). The other four parameters — q, limit, format, offset — remain completely undocumented in both schema and description, so the fuzzy-match semantics of q and the pagination contract are never explained.

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?

"模糊搜索" states a search operation but gives no target domain beyond the enumerated kind values. The listed kinds (item | recipe | machine | material) overlap heavily with sibling tools like recipe, machine, and material, yet the description never explains how this generic search differs from those specialized 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 kind enumeration hints at scoping the search, but there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the specialized siblings (recipe, material, machine, trace, balance). No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided.

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