Find Best Match

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says the lookup is 'quick/快速'. It does not state whether matching is exact or fuzzy, whether it is a pure read with no side effects, or how ties/no-match cases behave — all relevant given siblings like open_verification_window and the download/cache tools.

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?

One short sentence with zero waste and the matching criterion front-loaded. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than achieving tight completeness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and there is only one well-documented parameter. Still, with no annotations and 16 siblings, the description should at minimum say this is a read-only best-match lookup and how it differs from search_cnki.

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% and the sole parameter already documents itself as '论文标题', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's phrase '输入标题' merely restates that, adding no constraints on length, formatting, or whether the full title is required.

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 ('查找...最匹配') and resource ('CNKI 论文'), so the agent knows it returns the single closest paper rather than a list. It does not name or contrast with the obvious sibling search_cnki, so the agent must infer the difference between 'best match' and 'search'.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'with an input title' suggests using it when you already have a title and want one exact paper. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. search_cnki / get_paper_detail, and no statement about what happens when no match is found.

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