fofa_search_next

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the cursor is opaque and originates from fofa_search, but it does not mention behavioral constraints like cursor expiry or the need to keep query/fields consistent.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and then states the prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 an output schema and safety annotations present, some gaps are acceptable, but the description still omits key continuation-call requirements: it does not state that the same query and fields must be passed, nor does it clarify size/full semantics. For a 5-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, this is too thin for confident correct invocation.

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. It explains only that the cursor is opaque and comes from fofa_search, but it provides no meaning for query, fields, full, or size, and does not clarify that query/fields likely need to match the original search.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Continue', with a clear resource, 'FOFA search', and names the mechanism, the opaque cursor returned by fofa_search. It distinguishes itself from fofa_search by making clear it is the continuation step, not the initial search.

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?

It clearly indicates this tool should be used after fofa_search, since the cursor comes from that tool. It does not explicitly list exclusions or say 'use fofa_search for the first page,' but the 'continue' framing makes the intended flow obvious.

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