HORIZON SHIELD 見積もり誠実性監査

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool uses a database and shows an operable UI card, but it does not disclose whether the tool mutates data, requires special permissions, or what side effects 'operable' implies. The return format and error behavior are also 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 concise and to the point, fitting the purpose and key constraints into one sentence. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes essential context (Japan only, JPY) without unnecessary filler. Slightly more structure or separation of clauses would improve readability.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain the result format or behavior. It only says results appear as an 'operable audit card (UI)' but does not describe what data the card shows, how the verdict is presented, or what happens for out-of-range estimates. This leaves a significant gap for agent use.

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 both parameters have clear Japanese descriptions. The tool description itself only references the general inputs (estimate amount) without adding further meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameters well.

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 identifies the tool's function: judging whether a contractor's construction/renovation estimate is appropriate using HORIZON SHIELD's range data and displaying it as an audit card UI. It names a specific resource (souba-db) and a specific verb (判定し表示する). It does not distinguish from sibling tools because no siblings are provided.

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 intended use is implied: the tool is for auditing contractor-provided estimates for construction/renovation work. It gives constraints (Japan only, JPY) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Since no sibling tools exist, explicit alternative guidance is absent.

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