search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers: it discloses multi-word query semantics (space-separated, mode=and requires all / or requires any, including the synonym-set use case), date format constraints (YYYY-MM-DD), substring matching behavior for source, the three ordering values, and the output fields (id, title, date, source, snippets). This is substantial behavioral disclosure for a search 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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose before adding parameter semantics. Every sentence adds value — no filler or repetition. It could be lightly reorganized, but it is efficient and skimmable for an agent.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is notably complete: it specifies the return shape (id, title, date, source, snippets) and explains most parameter formats and options. The sole omission is the limit parameter's default/behavior, a minor gap relative to how well the rest of the contract is disclosed.

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 compensate, and it covers 6 of 7 parameters: query (space-separated multi-word), mode (and/or meaning), date_from/date_to (format), source (substring semantics), and order (allowed values). Only the limit parameter receives no semantic explanation. This goes well beyond the schema's bare defaults to add real meaning.

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 clear purpose — full-text search over the corpus (全文检索语料库) — with a specific verb and resource. It details the search mechanics (multi-word queries, and/or modes) which separates it from siblings like list_articles (listing) and get_article (single retrieval). It lacks an explicit named sibling differentiation, so it stops 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?

Usage context is implied through mechanics: query syntax, date filters, source substring, and ordering options suggest when one would invoke it. However, the description never names alternatives or states when not to use it versus the eight siblings (e.g., list_articles for unfiltered listing, topic_timeline for temporal analysis). No explicit exclusion or routing guidance is given.

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