search_stats_by_keyword

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions it's a 'helper tool' and describes the return as a 'list of search results,' but lacks critical behavioral details: no information on permissions, rate limits, error handling, pagination, or what 'search' entails (e.g., fuzzy matching, exact matches). This is a significant gap for a search tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a helper tool note, then parameter and return sections. Each sentence adds value, though the structure could be slightly more streamlined (e.g., integrating the helper note into the purpose).

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well and notes the return type, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., search scope, result format details). The output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but more guidance on tool behavior would improve completeness.

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. It adds meaningful semantics: 'keyword' is explained with examples ('population,' 'GDP,' 'employment'), and 'limit' is clarified as 'number of items to retrieve (default 20 items).' This goes beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail constraints like keyword length or limit ranges.

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's purpose: 'search statistical information by keyword' and identifies it as a 'helper tool for easily searching statistical tables.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('statistical information'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stats_list' or 'get_stats_data' beyond being a 'helper tool.'

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions it's a 'helper tool for easily searching statistical tables' but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to siblings like 'get_stats_list' or 'get_stats_data,' leaving usage context implied at best.

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