国立国会図書館 WARP 検索 URL 生成

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 that WARP search results are JavaScript-rendered and the internal API returns 403, meaning HTTP retrieval is impossible, and that the tool only returns a URL and instructions. It also mentions the 2002 coverage limit. This is strong transparency, though it does not cover every possible edge case.

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 well-structured, with the purpose stated first, followed by constraints clearly marked with 【制約】. Each sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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 URL-building tool, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and key constraints. It lacks an explicit output schema but compensates by describing the returned content (URL and instructions). Minor ambiguity about whether the URL targets the WARP search interface or a specific result page could be clarified, but overall it is sufficient.

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 both parameters (keyword, includeInLibrary) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('組み立てる') and resource ('国立国会図書館ウェブアーカイブ（WARP）の検索 URL'), and clearly scopes it to Japanese sites. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly saying it only returns a URL and browsing instructions, not fetching results.

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 clear usage context: it is for generating WARP search URLs, and it warns that HTTP fetching will not work due to JS rendering and 403 blocking, implying users should use a browser. It also notes the 2002 collection start, suggesting limitations for 1990s pages, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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