有人オペレーターへのエスカレーション

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses server-side turn management, status transitions at 5 turns (end confirmation) and 10 turns (forced termination with request to create a separate inquiry), and that it does not generate reply text. However, it omits details about session creation, error handling, or full response structure, so some ambiguity remains.

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 three sentences with no fluff: first sentence defines scope, second gives invocation frequency, third explains turn limits and the lack of response generation. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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, so the description compensates by mentioning the status field and turn limits, but it does not enumerate all possible status values or other response fields. It also doesn't explain how to start a session if session_id is new. Still, for a simple 2-param tool, it provides enough to use it correctly in most cases.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only reiterates that the tool is called per utterance.

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 it manages conversation sessions with a human operator for inquiries that do not fall under returns or billing ('返品にも請求にも該当しない問い合わせについて'). This explicitly scopes the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_order, process_return, and get_billing_status.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'ユーザーの発言1回ごとに呼び出すこと' (call it for each user utterance) and excludes returns/billing cases, implying when to use alternatives. It also instructs that the tool does not generate operator replies, so the calling agent must craft responses, providing clear context for correct invocation.

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