mfuns_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It accurately describes the search operation and documents valid type values, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or result ordering. The verb '搜索' implies a non-mutating action, which partially compensates.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean argument list. Every sentence provides value, and the front-loaded summary makes the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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?

For a search tool with three simple parameters, the description adequately covers the purpose and parameters. The presence of an output schema means return values do not need to be described in the text, so no critical information is 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains all three parameters: query, type (with values resource and user), and size (default 20, max 50). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema, which only provides type and default information without descriptions.

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 it searches Mfuns community content (articles/videos) or users, using the specific verb '搜索' and defining the resource scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mfuns_browse or mfuns_read_thread, which focus on browsing or reading rather than searching.

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 the tool is for searching but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like mfuns_browse or mfuns_get_user. It provides no exclusionary guidance or comparison with sibling tools, so the usage context is only implied.

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