搜索草药

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

The description discloses that the tool returns detailed information including nature, flavor, meridian, efficacy, dosage, contraindications, classic pairs, and Ni Haixia annotations. Although no annotations are provided, this level of detail is good for a search tool, though it does not cover all behavioral aspects like error handling or rate limits.

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 concise sentences that effectively communicate purpose, input types, and output contents. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

For a simple one-parameter search tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers input types and output details. It could mention pagination or result limits, but the given information is sufficient for typical use.

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 schema covers the parameter 'query' with a detailed description, but the tool description adds specific examples and clarifies the output content, adding value beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, but the extra examples and return info justify a 4.

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 the tool searches Chinese herbs by name, efficacy, and meridian, with specific examples (e.g., '桂枝', '解表'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_formulas and search_acupoints by focusing solely on 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 herbs) but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on when not to use it.

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