search_volumes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose that results include hit volume/page numbers and context snippets, which is helpful. Yet it does not mention matching semantics, case sensitivity, pagination, limits, or whether the search is scoped to a specific case, leaving important behavioral details unspecified.

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 short and front-loaded with the core function before the parameter structure. It wastes few words, though the parameter section is incomplete and inaccurate, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.

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 description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It fails to mention the required case_id parameter, contradicts the actual schema regarding required fields, and does not clarify how the args object should be composed. These are significant gaps for an agent trying to call the tool correctly.

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 does document the intended args shape with query and volume, including examples. However, it omits the top-level required case_id field and claims volume is required even though the schema marks args as optional/nullable, creating a direct contradiction with the input schema that can mislead an agent.

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 states the tool searches within case files and returns matching volumes, page numbers, and context snippets, with a concrete use case of locating all occurrences of a fact or person. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_volumes and read_pages, though it does not explicitly name them as alternatives.

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 gives a clear intended use ('用于快速定位某事实、某人的所有出现位置') and indicates it is for keyword-based searching. However, it does not state when not to use it or explicitly contrast it with related tools such as read_pages or list_volumes, so usage routing is left partly to inference.

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