run_search_task

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

描述公开了核心行为（搜索、抓取、分析、导出）和返回结果（JSON摘要和文件路径），但由于缺少annotation，其未说明是否需前置登录、文件写入的持久性/位置、速率限制或错误处理等副作用，整体透明度中等。

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?

描述以功能概述开头，后跟一行自动化流程，再按列表形式列出参数，结构清晰。但参数描述较详细，可适当精简，整体无冗余，信息密度合理。

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?

描述覆盖了核心操作和所有参数，但缺少对错误处理、前提条件（如登录状态）、输出模式的具体字段说明以及文件路径的显式描述，导致在复杂场景下代理可能无法完全预知调用后的完整结果。

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description coverage为0%，描述完全补偿了参数的语义缺失。为所有8个参数提供了清晰的定义、可选范围（如max_notes 1-200）、默认值和必填/可选标记，使代理能准确理解每个参数的作用。

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?

描述以“搜索小红书笔记并批量抓取产品评论”开头，明确说明了动词+资源，随后列出了详细的自动化流程（搜索、抓取、分析、导出），直接与兄弟工具（scrape_single_note）形成对比，清晰标识了工具的整体范围和输出。

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?

描述详细说明了参数用法（必填和可选），隐含了端到端批量任务场景，但没有明确说明何时应避免使用此工具（例如，只需抓取单条笔记时使用scrape_single_note），缺少与兄弟工具的显式区分指南。

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