dingtalk_chat_search

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'search' and gives no information about result format, pagination, permissions, rate limits, or side effects. For a search operation, basic expectations like returning a list of group chats with IDs are not stated, leaving the agent to infer behavior.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and object. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, but it omits important contextual details that would make it more useful. It is not overly verbose, scoring well on conciseness despite lacking completeness.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining what the search returns (e.g., group names, IDs, member counts). It does not mention return value structure or any limitations. Given the simplicity, a moderate score of 2 is warranted because basic expectations are missing.

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 schema already provides a clear description for the single 'query' parameter ('群名称关键词（必填）'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description repeats the keyword concept but does not add extra detail about format, length limits, or search behavior beyond what the schema documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action: search group chats by keyword. It clearly targets the resource (group chats) and the operation (search). However, the phrase '用户所在的群聊' could be misread as searching by user rather than by group name, though the parameter description clarifies it is by group name. It does distinguish from sibling search tools like message search.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or contrast with related tools such as dingtalk_chat_message_search or dingtalk_chat_group_create. The description is purely declarative with no contextual direction.

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