smart-search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key behavioral trait: the tool returns a search URL rather than the actual search results, and specifies that Claude Code should use WebFetch to access that URL. This is valuable context beyond what the input schema provides. However, it doesn't mention other behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 extremely concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence provides crucial behavioral guidance. Both sentences earn their place, with no wasted words. The emoji and formatting (【重要】) help with visual organization without being verbose.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with URL return), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It helpfully explains the URL return behavior and WebFetch requirement, but doesn't cover parameter semantics, error handling, or result format. The description adds value but leaves significant gaps for a tool with no structured documentation support.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. While the description mentions '搜索' (search), it doesn't explain the 'query' parameter's semantics, format, or constraints. The description adds no meaningful information about the parameter beyond what's implied by the tool name and general search context.

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 the tool's purpose: '搜索博客园技术博客' (search CNBlogs technical blogs). It specifies the verb ('搜索' - search) and resource ('博客园技术博客' - CNBlogs technical blogs), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ai_search_csdn' or 'ai_search_juejin' beyond mentioning the specific platform.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for searching CNBlogs technical blogs. The second sentence offers guidance on what to do with the output (use WebFetch tool to access the URL). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives among the many sibling search tools.

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