search_endpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that search covers endpoint name, path, and description, and describes the return structure as a dictionary with a count and results array. It also explains the api_version decision rule, which is useful behavioral 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 compact structured block with Args and Returns sections, no redundant text, and every clause adds information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 covers purpose, all three parameters, and return type, and an output schema exists. It is sufficient for a search tool, though minor details like case-sensitivity or sorting are not mentioned, slightly preventing a perfect score.

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 provides only titles and defaults with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates: keyword scope is specified (searches name/path/description), category includes example filters (auth, listed, prices, fins), and api_version gets a clear decision procedure. This goes well beyond the 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 opens with '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), clearly stating the action and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like describe_endpoint and health_check, which serve different purposes.

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 does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. However, it provides detailed guidance on selecting api_version based on conversation context (V1 vs V2), which aids correct invocation. No when-not-to-use or sibling differentiation is present.

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