搜索方剂

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool returns detailed formula information but does not explicitly confirm it is a read-only, non-destructive operation or mention any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs.

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 long, well-structured, and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds essential information, with 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 single parameter and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the tool's capabilities and return details. However, it omits mention of pagination or result limits, which are relevant for a search tool.

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 description aligns with the schema. The description adds value by illustrating the types of queries (e.g., '小柴胡汤', '头痛', '少阳病') and the expected input flexibility, but the schema already adequately defines the parameter.

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 explicitly states the tool searches for classical formulas by various criteria (name, indication, keyword, six-channel classification) and provides concrete examples. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like search_herbs and search_acupoints.

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 gives examples of when to use the tool but does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools for different search types. With sibling tools like search_herbs, explicit exclusion guidance would help.

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