keyword_search

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses sorting by relevance, match modes, default values, and max results limit. It also hints at error handling (prompt download/parse on missing file) but lacks details on edge cases like zero results.

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?

Well-structured with strategy and rules sections. Each sentence adds value. The Args list is clear. The use of HTML-like tags adds structure but could be considered nonstandard; however, it aids readability and does not waste space.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, parameters, and error handling. Given the existence of an output schema, lack of return format description is acceptable. However, it could mention snippet highlighting or result ordering more explicitly.

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 0%, but the description fully explains all four parameters: local_key ('Bundle key from list/download'), keywords ('1-5 search keywords'), match_mode ('ANY or ALL, default ANY'), and max_results ('Max snippets, default 5, max 50'). This adds critical constraints and context beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'Search a parsed announcement by keywords' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like download, list, parse, etc., by focusing on searching within an already-parsed announcement.

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?

Provides explicit strategy: 'Directly invoke this tool. Do not pre-check file existence' and suggests using Chinese financial terms. Critical rules specify passing 1-5 keywords and expanding synonyms. Though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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