检索北邮人论坛

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context: search operates on a local index, results are deduplicated to the most relevant hit per topic, and original post locations are returned. No contradiction with readOnlyHint or openWorldHint. It stops short of detailing ordering/pagination, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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?

One compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the distinctive result behavior included. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation fields.

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 a full input schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and result shape at a high level. Missing explicit sibling differentiation is already penalized in usage_guidelines; overall the definition is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 already documents all six parameters with 100% coverage, including defaults, formats, and examples. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 3 applies; the schema carries the burden.

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 verb (检索), a specific resource (本地标题和正文索引), and a distinctive result behavior (one hit per topic plus original post location). This clearly differentiates it from sibling getters like get_thread and get_board, which retrieve rather than 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?

The description implies this tool is for searching the local title/body index, so the intended context is recognizable. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer routing from the tool name and siblings.

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