豆包搜索

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns publish timestamps, traceable source URLs, long-form text snippets, supports Chinese and English queries. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or destructive operations, but those are less critical for a read-only search tool. Overall, transparency is good.

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?

The description is moderately sized and front-loaded: it states the tool's identity and key features first, then details sources and usage. Every sentence adds unique information without redundancy. Minor improvement could be trimming the bullet-like listing, but overall efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (results with timestamps, source URLs, long-form text). It covers the main aspects a user needs to know. However, it lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or error handling, which would be nice but not critical for a 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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema: for 'query', it notes natural language works well; for 'snippet_length', it suggests raising for deep reading; for 'images', it mentions CDN URLs. This contextual information aids parameter selection.

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 it is a web search API via Doubao Search, listing specific exclusive ByteDance sources (Toutiao, Douyin Baike) and strengths like cross-language support and fresh results. It also enumerates use cases such as fact-checking and research on Chinese topics, making the purpose unambiguous and actionable.

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?

The description explicitly lists appropriate use cases (fact-checking, recent news, Chinese internet topics, entity lookups) and highlights when the tool excels (Chinese content, fresh results). Although no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is given (and no siblings are defined), the context provided is sufficient for typical decision-making.

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