search_faq

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'search' and gives examples, but does not disclose whether it returns full Q&A pairs, how matching works, or that it is a read-only operation. No additional behavioral context is provided beyond the raw action.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose with relevant examples. There is no redundant or filler content; it is appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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 schema fully documents parameters and an output schema exists, so return handling is covered. However, the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral expectations, which leaves some gaps for a search tool with multiple siblings. It is adequate but not fully 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 100%, meaning both parameters (question and limit) are already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses the verb '检索' (search) and specifies the resource '家长高频问题库' (parents' high-frequency question bank), with clarifying examples like low-salt diet and hormone side effects. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools such as search_food and list_faq_topics.

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 implies usage for looking up common parental questions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like list_faq_topics or explain_terms. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool names, leaving the when-to-use conditions to be inferred.

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