search_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It only states the search action and does not disclose return format, pagination, side effects, or any constraints. For a search tool, this is limited context.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the simple functionality.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks information about the response structure or usage nuances like pagination. However, the schema thoroughly documents all parameters, making the tool minimally viable for invocation. The description could be more complete, but it covers the core purpose.

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% for all three parameters, including keyword, category, and api_version with an enum and default value. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'エンドポイントをキーワードとカテゴリで検索する' (Search endpoints by keyword and category), specifying the action (search), target (endpoints), and scope (keyword and category). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_endpoint or fetch_spec_page.

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 usage for finding endpoints, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It is a straightforward description without usage context.

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