Find LINE sticker by mood/keyword

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent. The description adds valuable context: searches a curated catalog, supports Thai/English, returns specific fields, and explains how to use results. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-organized with clear sections: purpose, usage context, args, returns, and example. Every sentence adds value, and key information is front-loaded.

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's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description fully covers what an agent needs: how to search, what results look like, and how to integrate with line_send_message.

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?

Low schema coverage (33%) is compensated by the description: it provides examples for query, explains limit (1-20, default 5), and clarifies response_format enum values. The return structure in the description further aids parameter understanding.

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 LINE stickers by mood or keyword, using a curated catalog. It distinguishes from all sibling tools, none of which offer sticker search.

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 that LINE has a limited sticker list and this tool helps pick by intent, avoiding ID guessing. It also shows how to pass results to line_send_message, but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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