msearch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool executes multiple searches in one request, which implies a batch operation, but lacks details on error handling, response format, performance implications, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured: it starts with a clear purpose statement, lists parameters with brief explanations, and provides a helpful example. There's minimal waste, though the formatting includes extra whitespace that doesn't affect clarity.

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 the complexity of executing multiple searches, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers basic parameter semantics but misses behavioral details like response handling, error scenarios, and performance considerations, which are crucial for effective tool use.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds value by explaining that 'searches' is a list where each item contains 'header' and 'body', and includes an example showing the structure. However, it doesn't fully document all aspects (e.g., what fields 'header' and 'body' should contain, data types, constraints), leaving some ambiguity.

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 the tool's purpose: '多重搜索（一次请求执行多个搜索）' translates to 'Multi-search (execute multiple searches in one request).' This specifies the verb ('execute multiple searches') and resource ('searches'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search' or 'search_simple' beyond the multi-request aspect.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search' or 'search_simple', nor does it specify contexts where batching searches is beneficial (e.g., efficiency, bulk operations). Usage is implied only by the tool's name and basic description.

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