cnki_search_with_abstracts

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

The description transparently states that it automatically fetches details and provides time estimates (40-60s vs 15-20s for 10 results), which helps set expectations. It does not explicitly mention read-only behavior or side effects, but given the search context this is not a major gap.

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 compact and well-structured, using a short introductory sentence followed by a clear breakdown of modes, time costs, and shared parameters. No redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, the optional modes, and performance expectations. It does not describe error handling or pagination, but these are not critical for basic usage and the description is otherwise 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?

All 9 parameters are described, with clear explanations for filters like author, keyword, year range, and organization. Default values for mode and max_results are provided. While the Chinese descriptions are concise, they add meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states that the tool searches CNKI academic literature and automatically fetches detailed information for each paper, distinguishing itself from cnki_search by promising enhanced detail retrieval. The two modes (full and basic) further clarify the scope of what is returned.

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 explains when to use each mode based on the trade-off between detail (full) and speed (basic), and notes it shares parameters with cnki_search. However, it does not explicitly compare with cnki_professional_search or other siblings, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this tool over alternatives.

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