mkt_search

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the most important trait — that this is strictly read-only, stated twice — which reassures an agent it is non-destructive. It says nothing about per-channel coverage, rate limits, auth requirements, result volume, or pagination, leaving real behavioral gaps.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, which is good, but '只读' appears twice in a three-clause description, so a meaningful share of the already-tiny text is redundant. The channel enumeration is useful but duplicates the schema enum.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage across three parameters, the description should explain what a search returns and how query/limit behave per channel. Instead it only restates the channel list and read-only nature, so an agent knows the intent but not the mechanics of a correct call.

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%, so the description must compensate, but the only parameter detail it adds is the channel enum — which is already declared in the schema. The required 'query' parameter and the 'limit' parameter (default 10) receive no explanation of syntax, per-channel query language, or what the limit bounds.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: a read-only channel search, with the intended use cases enumerated (audience research / discussion / competitive discovery) and the channel domain inline. It is clearly a search tool, though it does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as mkt_channels or mkt_channel_venues, which an agent might also reach for.

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 parenthetical '(客群/讨论/对标发现)' implies the situations the tool is for, which is a step above nothing. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for channel listing/planning, so an agent must infer routing from the sibling list alone.

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