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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns a list of dictionaries with search results, which adds some value, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination behavior beyond the parameters. For a search tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and return value. There's no unnecessary information, and it's front-loaded with the main action. However, the formatting with extra whitespace slightly detracts from perfect efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search functionality with three parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return type but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output structure. This leaves gaps that could hinder effective agent operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema already fully documents the three parameters (keyword, limit, page). The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'keyword' relates to Weibo topics or the implications of 'limit' and 'page.' With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Search for topics on Weibo based on a keyword.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('topics on Weibo'), and mechanism ('based on a keyword'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_content' or 'search_users,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_content' or 'search_users,' nor does it specify contexts or exclusions for usage. This lack of comparative information leaves the agent without clear direction for tool selection.

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