Search Japanese / English-language SaaS Terms of Service snapshots (Stripe / Anthropic / AWS / Google Cloud / GitHub …). Stage 1 covers 'terms' docs. Each hit includes firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | タイトル / 本文先頭抜粋・部分一致 | |
| vendor | No | 'stripe' / 'anthropic' / 'aws' / 'gcp' / 'github' … | |
| docType | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description claims 'Stage 1 covers terms docs' but input schema includes docType enum with privacy, pricing, sla, creating a contradiction. No annotations to clarify safety or side effects.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loads purpose. Efficient but could structure parameter info.
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?
Lacks clarity on the docType limitation contradiction, query language, and output format. Without output schema, more detail on return fields would help.
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?
Description does not add parameter details beyond the schema. With 50% schema coverage, it fails to compensate for missing descriptions on limit and docType.
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?
Clearly states it searches SaaS Terms of Service snapshots with examples. Mentions 'Stage 1 covers terms docs', indicating scope. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like tos_watch_get.
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 instead of siblings like tos_watch_get or tos_watch_recent_changes. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.