搜索针灸穴位

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

The description discloses what the tool returns (location, needling method, indications, Ni Haixia annotations) and the types of queries supported. Since no annotations are provided, it carries the full burden but does not explicitly state safety or side effects. However, it is a search tool, so the behavior is transparent enough.

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 two sentences covering the search types and return fields. It is front-loaded and every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return fields (location, needling method, indications, annotations). The single parameter is well-described, and the tool's purpose and inputs are fully covered.

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?

The parameter description in the schema already lists examples, but the tool description adds value by including the four general acupoint rules ('肚腹/面口/头项/腰背') which is not in the schema. This enriches the semantics beyond the structured input.

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 that the tool searches acupoints by name, channel, indications, and special patterns like the four general acupoint rules. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_formulas and search_herbs.

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 implies usage for searching acupoints but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. No comparison with sibling tools is given.

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