get_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool's scope (answers questions outside API spec) and lists covered topics, but does not mention response format, limitations, error behavior, or any side effects. For a simple Q&A tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists examples with separators. It is efficient and structured, though the enumerated list is slightly long. No wasted 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and when to use. It lacks an explicit statement about the return value format, but the verb '回答する' implies a natural-language answer, making it sufficient for the agent.

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 schema provides a description for 'query' with examples (e.g., 'Premiumプランの料金は？'). The tool description adds semantic context by enumerating categories like plans, pricing, contracts, and support, helping the agent form appropriate queries beyond the schema's generic 'ユーザーの質問内容'.

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 explicitly states 'API仕様書の範囲外の質問に回答するためのツール', using a specific verb (回答する) and resource (questions outside API spec). It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle API spec operations (search_endpoints, describe_endpoint, etc.) by clearly delimiting its scope.

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?

It provides clear when-to-use guidance by listing specific categories (pricing, contracts, login, support) and says '使用してください' (use when receiving such questions). It implies that within-scope questions should go to other tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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