搜索飞书云文档

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return fields (title, type, URL, update time) and the permission scope. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only (though implied by being a search), nor does it describe pagination behavior or rate limits. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose, mentions the return fields, and provides a hint about follow-up tools. There is no fluff or redundancy, and every part earns its place.

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 (8 parameters, 1 required) and absence of an output schema, the description provides essential context: the scope of search, return fields, keyword length, and a pointer to related tools. It does not explain pagination or advanced syntax, but these are covered in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 100%, so all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter-specific value beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it mentions the 30-character limit, which is also in the schema). It does not clarify parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: searching Feishu cloud objects (documents, sheets, bitables, wiki pages, etc.) by keyword, returning title, type, URL, and update time. It explicitly names the sibling tool read_feishu_doc for further read/write operations, distinguishing itself as a discovery tool.

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 this tool (to find objects) versus siblings (to read/write them after obtaining URL/token). It mentions the keyword length limit and permission scope. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide alternative search methods, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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