Soracom Knowledge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by stating it resolves API schema links and attempts exact URLs first, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, and the second adds a key detail. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could mention the return format (e.g., markdown text) but is sufficient for its complexity.

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% and the schema's url parameter description is detailed. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 clearly states the tool fetches full markdown for a SORACOM documentation page, which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes from sibling search tools by mentioning it resolves API schema links and attempts exact URLs first, leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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 used after searching (e.g., with search_api_docs) to retrieve full content, but it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about search types and result usage, but no additional traits like rate limits or authorization.

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?

Four well-structured sentences: purpose first, then usage guidance, then cross-reference. No unnecessary words.

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 7 parameters, all schema-described, and no output schema, the description effectively explains scope, usage, and integration with sibling tools. It is complete.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds extra context, such as 'discover valid tags from result api_tag fields' and 'omit query to browse filtered operations', going beyond schema.

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 SORACOM API documentation, CLI references, and SAM permissions. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying when to use each alternative.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use this tool versus siblings: 'Use search_soracom_docs for service guides... Use get_document on ... links in results to read full API schema fields.' Gives clear context.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds the scope of documents (blogs, changelogs, etc.) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like rate limits, result behavior, or authentication requirements. Given the annotations, this is adequate but minimal.

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 only five sentences and is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, coverage, sibling distinction. No redundant or filler content. Structure is optimal for quick scanning.

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?

The description adequately explains the tool's scope and usage for a search tool with 6 parameters. However, it lacks details about return format, error handling, or result ranking. Given that there is no output schema, omitting return value information is a minor gap. Still, it is complete enough for the tool's relative simplicity.

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 each parameter has a description in the input schema. The description goes beyond the schema for the 'document_names' parameter by providing detailed explanations of each document's content and language, which helps the agent select appropriate values. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 verb 'Search' and specifies the resource: 'SORACOM service documentation, guides, and console how-to articles'. It also explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'search_api_docs' by directing API-related queries there, ensuring agents select the correct tool.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (searching user-facing docs) and when to use the sibling tool 'search_api_docs' (for API references, CLI commands, SAM permissions). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention any prerequisites.

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