campus_question_search

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose the full search pipeline: auto keyword extraction, dual-source search, and merged Markdown output with source titles and links. It does not, however, explain the days recency window, the include_channel toggle, or behavior with zero results.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the action and sources, then follows with the pipeline steps and output format. Every clause adds information and there is no filler.

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 description is sufficient for a default invocation using only the required question, and an output schema covers the return structure. However, with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and three sibling tools, the missing parameter semantics and lack of alternative routing keep it from being 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to compensate, but it only clarifies the question parameter through the auto-extraction behavior. The parameters days, keywords, max_results, and include_channel are left unexplained, so an agent cannot reliably customize the call beyond the required question.

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 the action (检索), the exact sources (学校官网 + 校园 QQ 频道), and the concrete pipeline: keyword extraction, searching both sources, and merging Markdown results with titles and links. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like official_site_search, which are single-source or summary tools.

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 use for natural-language questions covering both campus sources, but it never states explicit when-not conditions or names sibling tools as alternatives. The '自定义问题' phrasing provides context without exclusions, so the agent must infer the boundary with official_site_search.

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