告示の改正一覧

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope information the annotations cannot convey: results are limited to amendments published on/after 2018-01-01 and only those listed on the MLIT (国交省) amendment pages. Pagination/return behavior is left to the output schema.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the sibling comparison, then the data-scope caveat, then the parameter rule. No filler; every sentence carries information.

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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return shape, the description supplies exactly the remaining pieces an agent needs: what is returned, the data coverage window, the source, and the parameter selection rule.

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 coverage is 100% and both params are optional, but the description adds a constraint the schema cannot express: exactly one of the two identifiers must be supplied. That mutual-exclusivity rule is real added meaning beyond the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('改正一覧だけを取得する') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling get_kokuji by noting it is the lighter-weight option that omits the body text. An agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (get_kokuji) and the trade-off (lighter, no body text), and states the selection constraint that exactly one of kokuji_number / kokuji_name must be given. It does not spell out an explicit 'when not to use' case beyond the sibling contrast, so a 4 rather than 5.

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