search_parameters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description contributes modest extra context: results are paginated and return raw fields plus provenance/source. It says nothing about result volume, ranking or what happens when nothing matches.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the searchable fields and then the result/pagination behavior. No filler, though the terseness is also what leaves the routing and catalog_id gaps unaddressed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a four-parameter search tool in a dense sibling cluster, the definition omits catalog scoping and sibling differentiation, which an agent needs in order to call it correctly rather than picking search_device_parameters.

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 all four parameters carry only bare titles and defaults. The description partially compensates by explaining what 'query' matches against (Chinese name, function code, description) and by implying limit/offset via 分页, but catalog_id is left entirely unexplained despite catalog-scoping being a meaningful sibling concept (list_parameter_catalogs, discover_device_parameter_catalog).

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 names a specific verb (搜索) plus the resource (参考参数) and enumerates the searchable fields (中文名称、功能码、说明), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the very similar sibling search_device_parameters, leaving the agent to guess which search surface applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance at all. With siblings like search_device_parameters, discover_device_parameter_catalog, list_parameter_catalogs and get_parameter_definition all plausibly relevant to 'find a parameter', the description gives no routing signal between them.

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