get_query_language_documentation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what content will be retrieved (query language documentation covering operators, conditions, sorting, paging) but doesn't mention format (HTML, markdown, JSON), size limitations, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some value but leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and scope. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter documentation retrieval tool, with no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the core purpose from the content details.

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?

For a zero-parameter documentation retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal information. It specifies what documentation will be retrieved and the topics covered, but doesn't describe the return format, structure, or any limitations. Given the lack of structured fields, the description should ideally provide more complete context about the output.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist, and it appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than what it accepts as input.

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: '取得します' (get/retrieve) 'kintoneクエリ言語（検索クエリ）に関する詳細なドキュメント' (detailed documentation about kintone query language/search queries). It specifies the resource (query language documentation) and scope (operators, conditional expressions, sorting, paging). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_documentation_tool_description' or 'get_field_type_documentation'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or relationships with other documentation tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone without explicit contextual guidance.

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