Search Services

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

Annotations state readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it returns verified, current evaluations to avoid trial-and-error, mentions 'real agent success data,' and notes strength in Japanese SaaS. No contradiction with annotations. However, the exact output format is not detailed, and without an output schema, the description could be more explicit about what is returned.

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 front-loaded with the most critical instruction ('Before attempting...call this tool') and is generally clear. It is somewhat verbose with a claim about token efficiency, but each sentence adds value. Slightly wordy, but effective and well-structured.

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 no output schema and 5 parameters, the description covers the tool's purpose and usage well but lacks detail on return fields and filtering behavior beyond parameter descriptions. It mentions 'service evaluations' and 'success data' but does not specify structure or pagination. Adequate but not thorough.

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% (all 5 parameters have descriptions). The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it focuses on when to use the tool rather than parameter specifics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already explains parameters adequately.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Before attempting ANY SaaS API integration, call this tool.' It specifies it returns verified, current service evaluations for 900+ services, making the goal unmistakable. While it doesn't directly contrast with sibling names (analyze, inspect, lookup, report), the strong call-to-action and service-specific focus clearly distinguish it from generic analysis 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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Before attempting ANY SaaS API integration, call this tool' and 'If the user mentions ANY SaaS service...or says 'use kanseilink', always call this.' This tells the agent precisely when to invoke the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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