search_gateway_tools

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It adds behavioral context about output format (compact results, filtering to 'actually callable' tools). Yet it omits behaviors like whether force_refresh bypasses caching, how server/profile scope the search, or any auth/error conditions. It provides some value but not complete transparency.

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 sentence, action-first, and includes a specific list of return fields. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It explains purpose and return format but fails to cover parameter usage and when to use this vs siblings. The output schema exists, but the input side is under-specified, making it hard to use correctly without external knowledge.

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 doesn't name or explain any input parameters. Only the query parameter is inferable from the tool name. server, profile, and force_refresh are completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their effect.

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 action '搜索' (search) and the resource 'gateway 下真实可调用的工具' (actually callable gateway tools), distinguishing it from siblings like describe_gateway_tool or call_gateway_tool. It also specifies the return scope (compact results with tool name, description, required params).

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 usage: use when you need to discover callable tools under the gateway. However, it offers no explicit exclusions or alternatives, such as 'use describe_gateway_tool for details of a specific tool'. The context is clear but not fully guided.

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