fanqie_find

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the key behaviors: fuzzy matching, cross-snapshot scope, and the returned fields (book_id and bibliographic info). It does not mention ordering, pagination, or potential cost of scanning all snapshots, but these are secondary for a simple lookup tool.

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?

A single sentence packs the verb, resource, scope, matching mode, and result. There is no filler or redundancy; the important operational details are front-loaded.

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?

Given a simple two-parameter search with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately states what the tool does and returns. It could be more explicit about result ordering or the structure of '书目信息', but nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%: both query ('书名或作者关键词') and limit ('返回条数') are already described in the input schema. The description only restates the query concept and adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a concrete action ('跨全部快照按书名/作者模糊查找') with the resource and matching mode, and identifies the returned payload (book_id and bibliographic info). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are rankings/stats/trend tools rather than title/author lookup.

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 '按书名/作者模糊查找' provides a clear usage context: use this tool when the agent has a book title or author keyword and needs to locate a book across snapshots. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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