everything_search_pinyin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the operation is known to be safe. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: results come from a bounded candidate page, pagination must continue until candidates_exhausted, and results before that point are not globally exhaustive. The heteronym explanation is also useful runtime detail not present in the annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the pagination caveat is placed at the end where it reinforces behavior. The jargon 'ES candidate page' and 'candidates_exhausted' assumes context but does not waste words.

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?

No output schema exists for this paginated search tool, so the description should explain response/pagination semantics and key controls. It covers offset continuation and boundedness, but not what a response contains, how candidate_query/candidate_limit work, or how filters and limit interact. For a nine-parameter tool, this is incomplete.

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 description adds meaning for mode (full pinyin, initials, mixed), heteronym, and candidate offset. But with 0% top-level schema description coverage, it must compensate for many parameters; it leaves path, limit, filters, candidate_limit, and candidate_query semantically unexplained. The nested Filters schema has some descriptive help, but the main parameters still rely too heavily on names and defaults.

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 names a specific operation: match pinyin forms against a bounded candidate page, which clearly distinguishes it from regex, typo, exact, wildcard, and fuzzy search siblings. The verb 'Match' plus the pinyin resource makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool (pinyin queries) and warns that results are not globally exhaustive before pagination completes. However, it never names alternative tools or states when not to use this one, so the routing decision is left to inference from the name.

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