ai_search_doubao_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is a follow-up poll operation for retrieving asynchronous results. It implies a dependency on the 'taskId' from a prior call, which is critical. However, it does not detail what happens if the task is still pending (e.g., should retry?) or if the task fails, but the use-case is sufficiently narrow.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no fluff. The crucial usage condition is front-loaded, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 has only one parameter and an output schema (present but not shown in detail). The description covers the core usage pattern (follow-up after timeout). It misses potential edge cases like what to do if the task is still running or error handling, but for a simple result-fetching tool with one parameter, this is reasonably complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% (no descriptions for the 'task_id' parameter in the schema), so the description must compensate. The description clarifies that 'task_id' comes from a timeout of 'ai_search_doubao', adding essential context. It doesn't describe format or constraints, but the single required parameter is well-explained in the description's usage context.

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 queries the result of a Doubao search task. The verb '查询' (query) and resource '豆包搜索任务结果' are specific. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling results tools like 'ai_search_kimi_result' or 'ai_search_deepseek_result', though the name difference implies a distinct AI provider.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: only after 'ai_search_doubao' times out and returns a 'taskId'. This provides clear context and an implied alternative (use 'ai_search_doubao' first), making it excellent guidance.

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