search_interfaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: results are truncated to the first 50, with the prescribed remedy. It omits other traits such as ranking/ordering of matches or empty-result behavior, but the most consequential limit is front and center.

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?

One compact sentence: purpose first, return value second, truncation caveat last. No filler, and the limit warning is placed where a caller will hit it rather than buried.

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 one-parameter search with an output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and its result cap, which is enough to call it correctly. Only the workflow position relative to describe_interface and get_data is unstated.

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% and the single keyword parameter is fully documented in the schema (matches interface name or Chinese title, with examples). The description restates that it searches by keyword but adds no syntax, format, or matching nuance beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb (搜索) and resource (AKShare 数据接口), plus what is returned (接口名与中文标题). It does not differentiate against the siblings describe_interface/get_data, so an agent must infer that this is the discovery step rather than the metadata or data-fetch step.

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?

Gives actionable usage context: search by keyword, and when the result set is large, narrow the keyword instead of paging. It never names describe_interface or get_data as follow-up steps, so the routing to siblings is left implicit rather than explicit.

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