search_posts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the result shape (author, text, time, likes/comments/plays) which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about pagination behavior of the default limit of 20, result caps, or rate limits, so an agent cannot tell how complete a result set is.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return shape, with the use case appended. Compact and waste-free, though it spends words on field enumeration while omitting the required platform parameter.

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?

For a 3-parameter, no-output-schema tool it covers the return fields well, but the required platform parameter is left unexplained and there is no routing guidance among several similar search siblings. Missing platform semantics is the clearest completeness gap.

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% across 3 parameters, yet the description only mentions the keyword. The required 'platform' parameter has no stated meaning or valid values despite a list_platforms sibling, and 'limit' is never explained, leaving half the parameter surface undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (搜索) and resource (内容/帖子与视频), and enumerates the unified return fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_trending, which the 'what's hot on a topic' framing partly overlaps with.

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?

Gives one usage scenario ("适合 某个话题最近在火什么"), which implies keyword-driven topic discovery, but never says when to prefer get_trending, search_creators, or list_creator_posts instead. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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