search_documents

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds valuable context by clarifying that the date parameters represent the issue date range, which is a behavioral detail not present in annotations. This enhances transparency beyond the structured data.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the essential date clarification without any redundant words. Every word 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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal but functionally adequate. It specifies the document types and date range, but lacks details on other filter behaviors or how results are returned. However, the output schema and annotations fill some gaps, so it's above average but not comprehensive for such a parameter-rich tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter understanding. It only explains the date semantics ('日付は発行日の範囲を表す'), leaving other parameters like paid, sent, search, and client_mid without explicit explanation. While some names are self-explanatory, client_mid is ambiguous, and the description does not clarify filtering logic.

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 a specific verb ('条件検索' = search) and resource ('見積書または請求書' = quotes/invoices), making the tool's purpose evident. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_clients, but the document type restriction provides reasonable distinction.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools such as get_document for retrieving a single document or create_quote/create_invoice for creation. The usage context is only implied by the tool's purpose, with no explicit exclusions or recommendations.

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