搜索 AI 订阅产品

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and open-domain profile is covered. The description usefully adds that queries accept Chinese, English, and common colloquialisms, but says nothing about ordering, empty-result behavior, or how price ranges are computed — context beyond annotations is thin.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with verb, scope, and return summary, then a second short clause on query flexibility. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description nonetheless summarizes key returns. The remaining gap is routing relative to the six sibling tools, which leaves the agent to guess between search and listing tools.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely extends query semantics by naming supported product families and colloquial aliases (「克劳德」「GPT 会员」), telling the agent what strings are likely to match. It still adds nothing about the limit parameter, which the schema already documents.

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 (AI 订阅产品), and enumerates the return shape (SKU、价格区间、店铺数), which is more than the name alone conveys. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_all_products or get_offers, so an agent must infer that keyword search vs. full listing is the dividing line.

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 usage ('按关键词搜索') but never states when to reach for this tool instead of list_all_products or get_offers, nor does it set exclusions. The mention of supported aliases hints at the intended caller behavior but is not framed as routing guidance.

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