search_pins

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what 'content analysis' does to results, whether pagination applies, or any rate limits. The ambiguity around 'content analysis' is a notable gap.

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 without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it is slightly under-specified, which prevents a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should clarify return values or behavior. It does not mention what results look like, whether analysis accompanies search results, or how filters interact. Given the sibling tools and parameter complexity, this is incomplete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'keyword search' which aligns with the keyword parameter, but does not explain limit or content_type beyond what the schema already says. No additional semantic value is provided.

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 Juejin pins (沸点) with keyword search and content analysis. The verb 'search' and resource 'pins' are specific, but 'content analysis' is vague and could confuse with analyze_trends or analyze_content_quality siblings, so it doesn't fully distinguish.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pins or search_articles. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or a decision context. The only implicit cue is the presence of 'search' in the name.

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