get_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a dictionary with official page links and LLM answer instructions, and emphasizes it is an accurate source. However, it does not mention potential limitations like data freshness, but this is adequate for a simple info tool.

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 well-structured with a sample list and Args/Returns sections, and it front-loads the core purpose. It is somewhat lengthy due to the exhaustive list, but each line adds useful guidance and 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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and no annotations. The description covers the purpose, usage boundaries, parameter meaning, and return format, making it sufficiently complete. The presence of an output schema and no nested objects reduces the need for additional detail.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section explains 'query' with examples ('Premiumプランの料金は？'). It adds concrete meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't clarify the optional null case or what happens if query is omitted, a minor gap.

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 this tool answers questions outside the API specification scope, listing concrete categories such as pricing, contracts, and support. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming search_endpoints as the alternative, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance: it lists specific question types and says to use this tool instead of other tools like search_endpoints. It also defines the boundary as 'outside API spec', giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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