Find LINE sticker by mood/keyword

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the curated catalog scope, the limitation to LINE's official sticker list, and the return object shape. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds usage context, and the third provides the return structure. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema fields, making every sentence valuable.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description provides the exact return shape and integration guidance with line_send_message, covering the main invocation context. The only notable gap is the lack of detail about 'limit' and 'response_format' behavior, but the tool is otherwise sufficiently described for selection and invocation.

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 33%, with only 'query' having a schema description. The description reinforces query semantics with Thai/English examples and intent-based matching, but it does not explain 'limit' or 'response_format', both of which lack schema descriptions. It partially compensates but leaves parameter behavior under-specified.

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 action: 'Find LINE stickers from a curated catalog by mood or keyword.' It specifies the resource (LINE stickers) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing intent-based selection and returning package_id/sticker_id for use with line_send_message, which no other sibling tool does.

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 the tool ('Bots may only send stickers from LINE's limited official list, so this picks by intent... instead of guessing IDs') and the next step ('Pass the chosen package_id + sticker_id to line_send_message via message.sticker'). It does not explicitly list alternative tools or exclusions, but no sticker-search sibling exists, so the context is clear.

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