search_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral caveat: '候选结果不是已确认事实' warns that results are unconfirmed candidates and must not be treated as ground truth — meaningful context beyond the annotations. It omits return format/pagination, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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 sentences with the core resource and the most important caveat front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity contributes to underspecification of parameters.

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?

With 3 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse to fully equip the agent — query/limit semantics and result shape are unaddressed. The result-reliability caveat is valuable but not enough to cover the gaps.

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 carry parameter meaning, but it only alludes to the `matter` filter ('可限定事项'). The `query` and `limit` parameters get no explanation of syntax, matching behavior, or default/range semantics anywhere.

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 (检索/search) and resource (历史对话/historical conversations), so the agent knows this is a search over past dialogue. It distinguishes itself reasonably from read_record/read_notes by being a search rather than a direct read, though it doesn't explicitly name 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 phrase '可限定事项' hints that results can be narrowed to a matter, and the caveat about candidate results implies a discovery use case. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and no named sibling alternative, leaving selection largely inferred.

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