search_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and clearly discloses that only search result summaries and links are returned, not the page body. It does not mention limitations like pagination or rate limits, but the key behavioral trait is communicated effectively.

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 consists of two tight sentences: the first states purpose and use cases, the second sets expectations about output and directs to crawl tools for full content. Every word earns its place, and it starts with the verb phrase '搜索网页内容'.

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?

The description covers purpose, use cases, and a key behavioral limitation, while the output schema handles return value details. It could have mentioned default result count or that it supports multiple regions, but the schema already documents those. Overall, it's adequate for a search tool with 5 parameters.

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 does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but it correctly implies the tool is for textual search. It does not repeat parameter details, which is acceptable given the thorough schema.

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 performs a general web text search, listing specific content types (technical docs, encyclopedias, blogs, forums, tutorials). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_videos and search_books, and from crawl tools by explicitly noting it does not fetch page content.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (searching text-oriented web content) and when to use alternatives: if full page content is needed, it directs the user to call crawl_single/crawl_batch on the result URLs. This clear usage guidance sets it apart from siblings.

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