ai-furniture-hub

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: rotation-fit handling ('回転フィット対応'), automatic coordination plan generation ('コーディネーションプランも自動生成'), and affiliate URL presentation ('affiliate_urlをユーザーに提示'). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 perfectly front-loaded and efficient. The first sentence establishes the use case with an example, the second explains core functionality, and subsequent sentences add important behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place with zero 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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well to explain the tool's unique behaviors (rotation-fit, coordination plans, affiliate URLs). However, it doesn't describe the return format or what happens when no products are found, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it mentions dimensions ('寸法(mm)を指定') and cross-category search ('カテゴリ横断で返す'), but these are already implied in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: suggesting products that fit a given space across categories. It uses specific verbs ('探す', '返す', '生成') and resources ('製品', 'コーディネーションプラン'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on space-first search rather than product-first or layout tools.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'スペース起点で探すときに呼ぶ' (call when searching based on space). It provides a concrete example ('洗面所の幅45cm×奥行30cmの隙間に何か置きたい') and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like search_products or get_popular_products by emphasizing space-first rather than product-first queries.

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