レトロサイト向け検索クエリ生成

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (combining site: filters and period phrases) and intended consumption, but does not describe the output format beyond 'query group' or explain how categories/includePeriodPhrases alter results. It omits details like whether output is a list or string, which leaves some behavioral transparency gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource, and contains no redundant filler. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, advantage, and direct usage instruction.

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) and strong schema coverage, the description covers the essential context: what it does, why it helps, and how to use the result. Minor gaps like exact return structure or category effects are acceptable because the schema explains them. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds general context (e.g., site: filtering links to categories, 90s phrases to includePeriodPhrases) but does not add concrete syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 'generates' search queries (検索語を生成する) for current search engines, combining site: host filters with 90s-specific phrases. It explicitly frames the output as input for WebSearch, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform retrieval or archival. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit context by stating the generated queries should be passed directly to the WebSearch tool and claims a higher hit rate than raw keywords. It implies when to use (for retro-site searches) but does not name alternative tools or give explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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