search_restructuring_events

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat those. The description adds no behavioral details beyond those annotations, but also does not contradict them. It is adequate but adds minimal contextual color (e.g., the Chinese term suggests localization).

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 sentences fulfill all essential purposes: stating the function, providing a Chinese translation, and listing use cases. No extraneous words; every phrase adds value. Does not repeat structured data.

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 largely complete for a search tool with good parameter schema, though it does not describe the output format or pagination behavior. However, given the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) and presence of cursor/limit parameters, the expected behavior is inferable. A brief note on return structure would raise it to 5.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description provides no additional parameter-level information beyond the schema; it only adds high-level event context. This is acceptable but does not elevate the score.

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 uses a specific verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource as 'asset restructuring events (重大资产重组)'. It lists concrete event types (M&A, asset injections, spin-offs, reverse mergers), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_events' or 'search_cb_events'.

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 explicitly states 'Use for M&A, asset injections, spin-offs, reverse mergers', providing clear context on when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools, which would strengthen guidance.

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