policy_bigdata_policy_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions pagination limits (pageSize max 50) and default values, which is helpful. However, it does not discuss permissions, rate limits, error handling, or the nature of the operation (read-only). For a search tool, this is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise and well-structured. It begins with a clear one-sentence summary of the tool's purpose, followed by a structured list of parameters with explanations. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 complexity of 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all parameters with examples and constraints (e.g., date format, address structure). It could be improved by explaining the order of results or how to handle empty results, but it is largely complete for effective tool usage.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter semantics. It provides detailed explanations for all parameters, including examples for 'matchKeyword', enumeration values for 'pnType', and complex format guidance for 'address' (including nested lists). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 it searches for policies, application guides, and public announcements with filtering options. The verb '搜索' and resource '政策法规、申报指南或公示公告' are specific, and the tool name 'policy_search' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'policy_info' or 'approved_project_stats'.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'policy_bigdata_policy_info' for details, 'policy_bigdata_approved_project_stats' for statistics). The context from sibling tools provides implicit guidance, but the description itself lacks explicit usage or exclusion criteria.

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