search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It's a read/search operation and implies no mutation, which is conveyed by '検索' (search). However, it doesn't disclose behavior such as pagination behavior beyond the 'limit' param, result ranking, or how matches are scored/deduped. For a search tool, aspects like relevance ordering would be useful but not strictly required.

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 single concise sentence that conveys the core purpose effectively. No wasted words, front-loaded with the verb '検索' (search). Appropriate brevity for a straightforward search tool. Could arguably be more informative, but this is genuine conciseness, not under-specification.

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 moderate-complexity tool (3 params, 100% schema coverage, no output schema). The description is adequate for a search tool but omits any mention of the return format, since there's no output schema. The search semantics provided are enough to invoke the tool correctly with the help of schema docs, though return value expectations must be inferred from the broad list of sibling tools.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (query, limit, tables). The description adds minimal param context beyond the schema. Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what's documented.

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 '全テーブル横断のフルテキスト検索' (Full-text search across all tables) states a specific verb+resource+scope—searching full-text across tables. It's clear about what it does but doesn't differentiate from siblings that do targeted lookups (e.g., list_profiles, list_skills). Given the generic name 'search' and many list_* siblings, it could better clarify how it differs from per-resource listing tools.

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 implies global search across all tables, which implicitly distinguishes it from per-resource list/get tools. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the individual list_* or get_* siblings, and no mention of any constraints or exclusions. The 'all tables' scope is the primary usage signal but exclusions/alternatives are not named.

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