AKBridge Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the payload is a 'small RAG context', but says nothing about behavior on empty/no-match queries, score/ranking semantics, or whether results must be fed to akbridge_call verbatim.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the action first and the sequencing rule second. Every clause earns its place, and nothing is buried.

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 tool is a simple read-only lookup with a rich annotation set and an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. It could still say what to do when the search returns nothing (fallback to akbridge_describe), which is the one gap for an agent following the prescribed workflow.

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 67%: query and category are documented in the schema and limit carries default/min/max constraints. The description adds no meaning beyond that — no guidance on limiting result count or how category interacts with natural-language query text — so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Search the local AKShare semantic catalog') and what comes back ('a small RAG context'), which an agent can distinguish from akbridge_call and akbridge_describe. It stops short of explicitly contrasting the catalog search with the describe/call siblings, so not a full 5.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow rule: 'Always call this before akbridge_call when the user describes data in natural language.' It names the alternative sibling and the condition that selects it, plus a clear prohibition ('never guess interface names'), leaving nothing to inference.

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