cnki_professional_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and succeeds: it discloses that wrong operators may hang the search, that '暂无数据' can indicate risk-control blocking rather than no results, that timeouts can be retried with browser rebuild, and that parallel calls timeout.

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 long but well organized: syntax rules, examples, syntax-guide referral, and a numbered operational notice. The content is mostly high-value, though the year rule is emphasized more than once and the overall length is substantial.

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?

For a syntax-driven tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers field operators, correct expression forms, common failure modes, retry behavior, concurrency constraints, and where to get more syntax help, which is everything an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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 already covers both parameters, and the prose adds substantial value for expression: field-specific operators, quoting style, AND/OR/NOT composition, multi-field examples, and the YE BETWEEN warning. It adds nothing about max_results, but the default value and schema description are already sufficient there.

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 opening line identifies the exact action: searching CNKI directly using CNKI professional search syntax. The field/operator rules and examples make the tool clearly distinct from sibling tools like cnki_search or cnki_search_with_abstracts.

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 provides strong operational guidance: consult cnki_syntax_guide when unsure about operators and do not call other cnki tools in parallel. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternative sibling search tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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