set_sort

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'set' without specifying side effects (e.g., whether it mutates the session state, whether the sort persists, or what the response contains). No information about expected_version conflict handling or the result of a successful call is given. The description does not contradict annotations (since none exist), but it fails to disclose any behavioral traits.

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 a single short sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so brief that it borders on terse, though the lack of wasted words earns a solid score for conciseness.

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 appears to be part of a multi-step search workflow (siblings include create_search_session and get_results), the description is incomplete. It fails to mention the need for an existing session, any ordering constraints, or the expected output/return value. With no annotations and no parameter guidance, an agent receives insufficient context to invoke the tool correctly in a complex workflow.

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 for the parameters. It partially explains the 'option' parameter by giving examples (price or area), but it says nothing about session_id (its role as a session identifier is implied but not explicit) and completely omits expected_version. The description adds minimal value beyond the raw schema and does not adequately document the parameters.

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 action: '设置结果排序方式' (set result sorting method), with concrete examples of values like price or area. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like select_filter_option and set_filter_range, which handle filtering rather than sorting. The verb-resource pair is specific enough for an agent to infer its core function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as requiring an active search session (created by create_search_session), nor does it explain how sorting differs from filtering or when to call get_results after sorting. The description leaves the decision entirely to the agent's inference.

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