bososo_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavior: the call blocks until results are complete (20-40s typical), long latency is normal, and repeated calls are discouraged. It does not cover failure modes, rate limits, or the exact shape/ordering of the token-bearing results, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then workflow routing, then the latency warning; each sentence is functional. The closing caution about slowness is slightly redundant with the earlier '通常 20~40 秒' statement, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 9-parameter, 1-required search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, workflow position, token dependency, and latency expectations. It omits the structure/ordering of the returned result list and any failure behavior, which are minor given the well-documented 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 100%, and every parameter (page, keyword, refresh, pageSize, matchMode, cloudTypes, maxResults, waitSeconds, timeRangeDays) already carries its own Chinese description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra semantics such as token lifetime or how matchMode interacts with result counts, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (search cloud-drive resources by keyword across named platforms) and returns 'results with token'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling bososo_get_resource, framing itself as step 1 of a two-step workflow, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (step 1 to obtain tokens), which sibling to call next and under what condition (bososo_get_resource to retrieve savable share links, requiring the token from this tool), and even a when-NOT-to: do not re-invoke just because it is slow.

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