PlugRail JP Recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. '取得' implies a read-only lookup, but nothing is said about not-found behavior, error handling, or permissions, which matters for a keyed single-record fetch.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the key format, with no filler. It is efficient, though the inline example duplicates the schema example and earns little additional space.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate — it tells the agent what key to supply. It omits the only substantive unknown, what happens when the management number yields no record.

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 100% and there is a single required parameter, so the schema already documents the 11-digit format and the example. The description merely repeats the same format and example, adding no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (取得) and resource (リコール詳細1件), scoped to a single record keyed by an 11-digit management number. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling search_recalls (single record vs. search) but never names the sibling or draws the distinction explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this tool applies when it already holds a management number, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over search_recalls or what to do when the number is unknown. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one non-obvious trait (JAN/model numbers are accepted as keyword), and pagination/limits are covered by the schema, but it says nothing about read-only nature, result contents, or rate limits.

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?

Two short purpose/usage sentences plus one compact input example, with the core action front-loaded. The example earns its place, though it is slightly redundant with the schema parameter examples.

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 4-parameter, no-required, fully documented search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, a key usage tip, and a concrete invocation example. It stops short of explaining result shape or when to escalate to the detail tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: keyword accepts JAN and model numbers directly, and the example shows keyword/category/limit combined in practice. It goes beyond restating the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: searching the Consumer Affairs Agency recall-info site by keyword + category. It contrasts with the sibling get_recall_detail implicitly, since this is a search/list operation, but never names the sibling to remove ambiguity.

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?

It gives a concrete usage rule (JAN / model numbers can be passed straight in as keyword) and a worked input example, which shows intended usage. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_recall_detail or any exclusions/limitations.

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