Look up the knowledge base

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that omitting id returns a list, passing id or name returns one entry, `within` narrows only for certain subjects, and the five other subjects return an error rather than silently ignoring `within`. That explicit error-handling disclosure goes well beyond what the schema alone states.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core usage pattern: choose a subject with `of`, omit id for a list, pass it for one entry. It is long partly because of intentional bilingual repetition and the detailed subject enumeration, but each part contributes useful routing or selection information, so the length is justified rather than wasted.

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?

For a 4-parameter lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the subject menu, list-versus-entry behavior, language selection, narrowing rules, and error behavior. The main gap is that it does not describe the shape or fields of the returned entries, which would be more valuable precisely because no output schema is provided.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description still adds meaningful semantics by explaining the id behavior (list vs single entry, id or name accepted), detailing the subject categories (e.g., framework examples and the six security layers), and clarifying the role of `within`. This exceeds the baseline expected when the schema already covers everything.

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 a specific verb and resource: one tool to look up TOGAF, ArchiMate, and security knowledge. It clearly distinguishes the two modes (omit id for a list, pass id for a single entry) and explicitly contrasts itself with search_togaf ('あちらは横断検索、こちらはピンポイント取得'), so an agent can separate it from the closest sibling without opening the schema.

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 states when to use each mode and gives an explicit routing rule: when the id is unknown, use search_togaf first, since that tool searches across subjects while this one fetches a specific entry. It also explains when `within` is allowed and which subjects reject it, providing clear selection and exclusion guidance.

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