レトロサイト発掘の探索手順

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It transparently states that the tool returns a procedure document rather than performing the search itself, and explicitly says to call it first. It does not detail the document's structure or failure modes, but for this simple meta-tool the description is sufficiently honest about its nature.

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 compact sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then immediately giving usage direction. Every clause earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description fully covers what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly without needing further details.

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 parameter 'topic' is already fully described as '探したい主題（あれば手順を具体化する）'. The main description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb '返す' and clearly states it provides a '手順書' for discovering obscure retro Japanese personal sites, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that directly execute searches or fetch pages. It also explicitly frames itself as a strategic entry point with 'どのツールをどの順で使うか迷ったとき、最初にこれを呼ぶ'.

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 gives a clear usage context: 'どのツールをどの順で使うか迷ったとき' (when unsure which tool to use in what order) and instructs the agent to call this first. It does not name specific alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the guidance is direct and actionable.

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