search_articles

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

没有注释，描述承担全部披露责任。描述了返回内容，并提示关键词过长可能导致空结果，这是行为特征。但未提及是否存在认证、速率限制等潜在问题，也未明确声明为只读操作（虽然搜索通常无副作用）。

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?

描述只有一句话，信息集中，直接点出目的、返回内容和关键使用提示，没有任何冗余。

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?

工具简单，两个参数均已在模式中说明，无输出模式但描述已列出返回字段，足够让代理理解调用预期。但缺少返回值排序或分页等细节，不过对于搜索工具尚可。

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?

输入模式对参数的描述覆盖率100%，描述额外补充了关键词使用建议（≤3词），这是模式本身未提供的实用语义，有助于代理正确调用。

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?

描述明确指定了动词'搜索'和资源'知乎文章（专栏）'，并列出返回内容（标题、作者、摘要、URL），与兄弟工具（search_questions、search_users等）在类型上明显区分。

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?

描述提供了具体的何时使用建议（关键词精简≤3词），但没有明确说明与兄弟工具的适用场景区分，例如何时应该用search_questions而非此工具。不过对于搜索类工具，关键词长度提示已经是有效指导。

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