ai_search_kimi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly states the tool auto-waits and returns a complete result, and that on timeout it returns a taskId for retry. This provides moderately useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or cost implications—important for a network-calling tool.

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, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose and output, the second explains parameters and timeout behavior. It front-loads the key verb '搜索' and is free of fluff.

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 that an output schema exists (so return value format is not needed in the description), and the tool is relatively straightforward (search with timeout), the description covers the main flow. However, it lacks mention of any error conditions, input validation rules, or what 'content' typically contains (e.g., is it structured or plain text?). The sibling tools array is large, and without more detail, the agent may confuse tool variants.

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%, and the description only mentions the purpose of 'inquiry_text' as '搜索提问文本'. It does not explain 'timeout_seconds' beyond the default value in the schema, leaving the agent to infer its role. With two parameters but minimal explanatory text, the description fails to add meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 performs 'Kimi 联网 AI 搜索' (online AI search) and specifies that it returns a complete result with 'content/webPages'. It distinguishes itself from search tools for other platforms (e.g., ai_search_doubao, ai_search_deepseek) by naming 'Kimi' 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?

The description provides clear context: it's an AI search tool that waits for completion and returns results. It also mentions a timeout scenario and refers to the sibling tool 'ai_search_kimi_result' for retrying when a taskId is returned. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if the user only needs a quick cached result).

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