搜索

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and open-world reach are covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: no rate limits, result ordering, pagination caveats, or the fact that result shape differs per search type.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, naming the platform first and the searchable entity types second. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves it close to under-specified rather than optimally sized.

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 four parameters fully covered by schema but no output schema, the description should clarify that the returned objects differ sharply by type (e.g. lyric search returns songs, user search returns profiles). That gap makes it only minimally adequate for a multi-mode search tool.

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%, so every parameter (type enum, limit max 50, offset, keywords example) is already fully documented in the schema. The description's enumeration of searchable types merely restates the enum, adding no syntax or behavioral nuance, 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 (搜索) and resource (songs, albums, artists, playlists, users, lyrics, podcasts) on a named platform. An agent can immediately tell this is the discovery/query tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the get_* detail siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or exclusion, and no mention of alternatives such as get_song_detail or get_lyrics when an ID is already known. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and verb.

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