smart-search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral trait that this tool returns URLs rather than direct search results, and that Claude Code must use WebFetch to access those URLs. This is valuable context about the tool's output format and required follow-up actions, though it doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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 perfectly concise with just two sentences. The first establishes purpose, the second provides critical behavioral guidance. Every word earns its place, and the important warning is appropriately emphasized with 【重要】markers.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers the tool's purpose and output behavior well but completely neglects parameter documentation. For a search tool with query and type parameters, users need to know what 'type' controls (e.g., news vs. projects vs. blogs).

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%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions no parameters at all, leaving both 'query' and 'type' completely undocumented. The description adds zero semantic information about what these parameters mean or how to use them.

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 searches for '开源中国技术资讯和项目' (Open Source China technical information and projects), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ai_search_github or ai_search_csdn beyond the platform name, missing direct sibling comparison.

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 explicit usage guidance with the 【重要】note stating this tool returns URLs that require WebFetch to access real results. This clearly indicates when to use this tool (for Open Source China searches) and what to do with its output, though it doesn't mention when NOT to use it versus alternatives.

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