ilinks_search_bookmarks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never states that this is a read-only operation, whether results are capped or paginated, what the result ordering is, or that auth/quota (see ilinks_get_quota, ilinks_configure_auth) may apply — all real gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Every clause contributes information about what is searched and how matching works.

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 simple two-parameter search with full schema coverage the description is nearly sufficient. With no output schema and no annotations, however, it should say something about the shape or limit of returned results and confirm the read-only nature.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit by explaining that the query is matched against multiple fields (name, URL, notes) rather than a single one — semantics the schema does not convey. It does not mention folder_id, though the schema documents that one adequately.

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 (用户已保存的书签), plus the matching scope (名称、URL、备注). It implicitly distinguishes itself from ilinks_list_bookmarks, but never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied — call this when you have a keyword and want matching bookmarks — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to ilinks_list_bookmarks for unfiltered browsing, despite a dozen siblings in the namespace.

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