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 key behavioral traits: it returns a URL (not direct results) and requires a follow-up WebFetch call to get actual content. This clarifies the tool's limited scope and workflow dependency, though it doesn't mention 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 efficiently structured with an emoji icon, clear title-like line, and a focused 'important' note. Both sentences earn their place: the first states the purpose, the second explains critical behavioral constraints. No wasted words or redundancy.

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, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It adequately covers the tool's purpose and key behavioral limitation (URL return), but misses parameter explanations, error cases, and output details. For a search tool with undocumented parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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. It provides no information about the 'query' (required) or 'tags' parameters—not explaining their purpose, format, or examples. The description fails to add meaning beyond the bare schema, leaving parameters semantically undocumented.

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 SegmentFault for technical Q&A and articles, specifying both the action (search) and resource (SegmentFault content). It distinguishes itself from siblings by targeting SegmentFault specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other search tools like ai_search_stackoverflow or ai_search_csdn.

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 implies usage for searching SegmentFault content, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling search tools (e.g., ai_search_stackoverflow for English content or ai_search_csdn for Chinese blogs). The 'important' note about using WebFetch for results is procedural rather than contextual guidance.

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