search_articles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful non-obvious details: the tool is free, uses zero AI, and returns only titles, summaries, and links. '检索' implies a read-only operation, and no destructive or side-effect behavior is suggested.

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, focused sentence with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and each phrase ('免费', '零 AI', '标题、摘要与阅读链接') adds useful information without redundancy.

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 search tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it states the purpose, input, and returned fields. It lacks explicit usage boundaries or sorting/pagination behavior, but these are not critical for this tool's complexity.

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. The description mentions '输入关键词' but this largely repeats the query parameter description already in the schema. It adds no meaningful detail about limit semantics or parameter interaction.

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 uses a specific verb ('检索') and resource ('求职干货文章'), and clearly states the return content (titles, summaries, links). It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools, but the article-focused resource makes the distinction inferable from tools like interview_questions_bank.

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 intended usage is implied through '输入关键词返回匹配的文章' and the listed content areas, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives. An agent would have to infer when this is preferable to sibling tools like interview_coach or resume_rewrite.

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