search_sake

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals matching behavior (kanji direct, Chinese kanji sharing glyphs) but does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Very concise: three sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action, then adds search detail and usage guidance efficiently.

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 output schema exists, description need not detail return values. It covers search logic, filtering, and integration with siblings. Could mention limit's purpose or case sensitivity, but still reasonably complete.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage). Description explains 'query' (brand/brewery name) and 'area' (prefecture), but does not explain 'limit'. Adds meaning for two of three parameters, partially compensating for schema gap.

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 finds sake by brand or brewery name and returns IDs, with specific detail about kanji matching. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning using IDs with get_sake_profile, find_similar_sake, and compare_sake.

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 explains when to use area filtering and directs the user to other tools for further actions. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context implies its role as a search step.

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