search_api_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches saved API documentation by keyword across API name, description, and category, but doesn't mention critical aspects like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), how results are formatted, if there are rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary fluff, and every sentence adds value. However, the Japanese text might be slightly less accessible in some contexts, but it's still efficient.

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 the tool has an output schema (Returns: str), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter guidance, it's adequate but has clear gaps. The description covers the basic functionality but lacks depth on usage context and behavioral traits, making it minimally viable.

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?

The description adds some semantic context: it explains that 'keyword' searches across API name, description, and category. However, with 0% schema description coverage (the schema only provides title and type), the description compensates partially but doesn't detail syntax, format, or examples. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but more specifics would improve this.

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: '保存済みのAPIドキュメントから特定のキーワードでAPIを検索します' (Search APIs from saved API documentation using specific keywords). It specifies the verb (search), resource (saved API documentation), and scope (by keyword). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_saved_apis' or 'get_api_details', which would require a 5.

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. With siblings like 'list_saved_apis' (likely lists all APIs) and 'get_api_details' (likely gets details for a specific API), there's no indication of when keyword searching is preferred over other methods. It mentions what the tool does but not when it's appropriate.

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