get-docs

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

Annotations are absent, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only lists documents and security rules, but does not mention read-only nature, side effects, rate limits, or return format. The tool's output behavior is completely unclear.

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 verbose, mixing tool purpose, a long list of document types, and extensive security rules that are not directly relevant to the tool's operation. The structure is front-loaded with purpose, but the second half is overly detailed and could be trimmed.

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 provides a comprehensive list of available documents and security rules, which is useful for context. However, it lacks information about return format, pagination, or error handling. Without an output schema, the description should cover these gaps more fully.

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 fully describes the single parameter (keywords) with a clear example. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 the tool searches for KG파이낸셜 payment integration documents, specifying two systems and listing supported document types. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like document-by-id or get-nezo-api-spec, which limits clarity for selection.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description includes security rules for coding, but does not help an agent decide between this tool and other document tools on the same server.

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