dingtalk_aitable_base_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own; it only says 'search by name keyword' without explaining matching semantics, result format, pagination, or scope. This is insufficient for a search tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; it efficiently states the core action. However, it is so terse that it omits useful behavioral context, making it concise but not fully informative.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description should describe what the search returns and any important limitations; it only provides the search criterion. The tool is related to several AITable siblings, but the description does not specify result scope or distinguish search/listing behavior.

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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter 'keyword' is described as 'Base 名称关键词' (Base name keyword), which largely mirrors the tool description's '按名称关键词'. The description adds no additional examples, syntax, or matching behavior beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the verb '搜索' (search) with the resource 'AI 表格' and the scope '按名称关键词' (by name keyword), clearly identifying the tool's operation. It distinguishes from sibling base_list by adding the search-by-keyword criterion, though 'AI 表格' is slightly ambiguous and could be confused with tables vs bases.

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?

Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like dingtalk_aitable_base_list or when a keyword is required; it only states the basic operation. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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