search_payloads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about return format, result limits, pagination, or whether the search is read-only. 'Search' implies a non-mutating operation, but this is inferred, not disclosed.

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 short sentence with no filler, but it is sparse rather than tight — nothing is front-loaded beyond the bare purpose and no secondary information is offered. Adequate but minimal.

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 two-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain result shape, matching behavior, and how it relates to the payload-retrieval siblings. None of that is present, leaving meaningful 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 100% — both 'keyword' and 'search_in' are documented in the schema, including the default of '全部' for search_in. The description adds no format, matching-rule, or case-sensitivity details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 specific verb and resource ('搜索' + '攻击载荷') plus the filter condition ('包含特定关键词'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the keyword-adjacent siblings get_payloads_by_category or list_attack_categories.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this search versus list_attack_categories or get_payloads_by_category, and no exclusion or prerequisite is stated. The agent must infer routing purely from the tool names.

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