official_site_search

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

The description clearly states that this is a full-text keyword search and details the returned fields, which is useful given that no annotations are provided. However, it does not disclose behavioral specifics such as the default 90-day time window, the maximum number of results, or how the optional keyword parameter interacts with query.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the operation, scope, and output contract in one pass.

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?

While the output contract is covered, the description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters and no annotations. An agent can make a minimal call using the required query, but it cannot confidently determine when to prefer this tool over siblings or how to correctly use keyword, days, and max_results without additional inference.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the relationship between query and keyword or the meaning of days and max_results. The phrase '关键词全文检索' partially clarifies that query is the search term, but the remaining parameters remain semantically underspecified.

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 a specific verb ('执行关键词全文检索'), names the exact resource ('西北农林科技大学官网（含新闻网）'), and states the output format (Markdown list with title/date/source/abstract/link). This makes the tool clearly distinguishable from siblings like official_site_recent or campus_question_search.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention that official_site_recent is for recency-based browsing or that campus_question_search targets Q&A content, so the selection criteria are entirely implied rather than explicit.

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