site_search

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it: nothing is said about whether results are ranked, how many are returned, what pagination does to result ordering, or whether any authentication applies. The one useful disclosure is the site-wide scope, which distinguishes it from section-scoped lookups, but that is thin for an unannotated 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 zero filler, and the scope qualifier (全站) appears immediately. It is efficient, though its brevity is closer to under-specification than to disciplined concision.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a paginated interface, the description should at minimum say what a call returns and how paging behaves; it says neither. An agent can guess it performs keyword search, but cannot predict result shape or how it differs from site_content or site_detail.

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 100% – both query ('检索词') and page ('页码，从 1 起，默认 1') are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning about query syntax, matching behavior, or how paging interacts with result sets, so the 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 names a specific verb (搜索/search) and a specific resource with scope (西湖大学官网全站 / Westlake University official site-wide), so an agent knows it queries the whole site rather than a single page. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as site_content, site_detail, or sites_index, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives like site_content or wiki_search. The only hint is the word 全站 (site-wide), which implies broad discovery rather than page retrieval, but that is inference rather than stated guidance.

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