search_fts_only

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the tool uses PostgreSQL full-text search and supports boolean operators, providing concrete behavioral insight. It does not disclose side effects or auth needs, but as a search tool, these are less critical; the technical detail is sufficient.

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 very concise, using a clear structure with headings. Every sentence adds value: purpose, method, parameters, and return. No wasted words.

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 presence of sibling search tools, the description successfully positions this as 'pure full-text search' with 'exact keyword matching'. However, it could explicitly contrast with 'search_hybrid' and 'search_vector_only'. The output schema exists, so the brief return description is acceptable.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains 'query' supports boolean operators (not in schema) and provides default for 'k'. This adds valuable semantic context beyond the raw 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 '纯全文搜索' (pure full-text search) and specifies it uses PostgreSQL full-text search for exact keyword matching. This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like search_hybrid and search_vector_only.

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?

It explicitly says '适合精确关键词匹配的场景' (suitable for exact keyword matching scenarios), giving clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which would elevate the score.

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