search_admin_help

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations and schema: the category agent also hits snapshot / Form Blueprint / public API / publish_revision content, meaning search results are not limited to standard help pages. Defaults for limit and locale are stated, though these duplicate the schema.

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 but efficient: purpose is front-loaded, the parameter essentials (required/optional, enums, defaults) are packed into one compact clause, and the category note is the only extra. The telegraphic style sacrifices prose flow for information density, but every fragment earns its place; it could read slightly more naturally without adding length.

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?

Since an output schema exists, return-value explanation is unnecessary; combined with 100% parameter coverage and read-only/idempotent annotations, the definition is nearly complete. The one meaningful gap is the absence of guidance for choosing among search_admin_help, get_admin_help_article, and ask_admin_help — a boundary that would make this definition fully self-sufficient.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description restates q as required, locale and limit as optional with defaults, which adds nothing beyond what the schema already documents. The category note is parameter-adjacent but describes search scope/behavior, not the meaning of any parameter.

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-resource pair, 「ヘルプ KB 検索」 (search Help KB), and further sharpens scope with 「category agent（snapshot / Form Blueprint / 公開 API / publish_revision）もヒット」, clarifying what content the search will match. An agent can immediately tell this is query-based KB search rather than article retrieval (get_admin_help_article) or conversational Q&A (ask_admin_help), even 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 required q parameter and the verb 検索 imply this tool is for query-driven search of the help KB, so usage context is present. However, the description never states when to prefer this over the two closely-related siblings get_admin_help_article and ask_admin_help, nor gives any exclusions. With 52 siblings, explicit routing guidance would materially reduce mis-selection.

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