search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses the default source (Web of Science). It says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, whether results are paginated or truncated at 'limit', or what makes 'mode' (default 'balanced') change behavior. For a 10-parameter search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

It is a single, tightly written sentence with no padding, and the core action is front-loaded. Its brevity is a virtue in form but the space saved is not reallocated to the missing parameter and usage detail, which is penalized in other dimensions.

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 explained, but for a 10-parameter search tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition leaves the agent without guidance on mode, filtering, sorting, or how this differs from 'structured_search'. It is far too thin for the tool's complexity.

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%: the schema gives bare titles and defaults (mode, site, sort, limit, year_from, year_to, concept_groups, document_types, options) with no meaning. The description only hints that 'query' is a research question and that 'site' defaults to Web of Science; the other eight parameters receive no semantic explanation in either the schema or the description.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource ('按研究问题检索学术文献') and names a default source (Web of Science), so the agent knows this is a literature search. However, it does not distinguish the tool from the sibling 'structured_search' or 'search_results', so an agent cannot tell which search entry point is appropriate without opening both schemas.

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 phrase '按研究问题' implies that this tool is meant for research-question-level queries rather than fielded or structured queries, providing only the faintest usage context. The description names no alternatives, gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and says nothing about prerequisites such as login or site selection, even though a 'login' and 'list_sites' sibling exist.

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