search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what parameters the tool accepts and provides examples, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects: whether this is read-only or has side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. For a complex search tool with 9 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, parameter explanations, and multiple examples. While somewhat lengthy due to the parameter details and examples, every section adds value. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, and the examples are directly relevant to tool usage. Minor deduction for some redundancy between parameter list and examples.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description does a good job explaining parameters but has significant gaps. It doesn't describe the return format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. While parameter coverage is excellent, other contextual aspects are missing, making this incomplete for a complex search operation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0% (all parameters have generic titles like 'Index', 'Query', etc.), but the description provides excellent parameter semantics. It explains each parameter's purpose in Chinese with helpful details: '索引名称（支持通配符和逗号分隔多个索引）' explains index accepts wildcards and comma-separated lists, and the examples demonstrate complex usage patterns for query, sort, pagination, etc. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 starts with '执行搜索查询' which translates to 'execute search query' - a clear verb+resource statement. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'search_simple', 'knn_search', or 'search_template' which also perform search operations. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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. With multiple search-related siblings (search_simple, knn_search, search_template, msearch), there's no indication of when this full-featured search tool is appropriate versus simpler or specialized alternatives. The examples show usage patterns but not selection criteria.

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