search_questions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the matching scope (stem/options/model answers), which is useful, but says nothing about read-only behavior, pagination, result ordering, rate limits, or auth requirements. For a search tool the read-only nature is inferable, but the description adds little beyond the match fields.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose (全文搜尋歷屆考題) and appends the matching detail in parentheses. Zero waste; every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, output schema present, no nested objects), and the description covers the search behavior adequately. The main gap is the absence of guidance distinguishing it from search_by_statute and search_by_issue, which an agent navigating 28 siblings would rely on.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'query' by specifying that it matches against the stem/options/model answers. The 'limit' parameter, however, receives no additional semantic detail — though its default of 20 and integer type make it fairly self-explanatory.

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 names a specific verb (全文搜尋/full-text search), a resource (歷屆考題/past exam questions), and the matched fields (題幹/選項/擬答). This scope signals a general full-text search tool and implicitly contrasts with siblings like search_by_statute and search_by_issue, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided. With specialized sibling searches (search_by_statute, search_by_issue) available, the agent is not told when to prefer this free-text search over those alternatives. Usage is only implied by the word 'search' in the title and description.

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