search_topics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral quirk: overly long keywords may return empty results. However, it does not describe return format, pagination, or any side effects, though the verb 'search' implies read-only. This adds some transparency but not comprehensive disclosure.

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 short sentences, with the core purpose stated first and the usage tip second. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states the purpose and a practical constraint. Given sibling tools provide context, it does not need to over-explain. However, it lacks explicit mention of what the return data looks like, though this is not critical for a search endpoint.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (query: required keyword, max: max results default 10), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by advising to keep keywords ≤3 words, which directly informs how to use the 'query' parameter, going beyond the schema's basic semantics.

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 '按关键词搜索知乎话题' (search Zhihu topics by keyword), with a specific verb (search) and resource (Zhihu topics). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_questions and search_articles, which target different content types.

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 provides clear context for searching topics, and the keyword-length tip ('关键词精简，≤3 词，过长易返回空') gives practical usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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