条文本文検索

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail: AND/OR/NOT are treated as literal search terms, wildcards are supported, full-width spaces are normalized, and results contain only section names and excerpts. That last point about missing article numbers is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by query syntax and then the key caveat about missing article numbers. It is dense and mostly earns its sentences, though the syntax rules restate what the schema already says.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still usefully warns that results lack article numbers and points to get_law. Coverage of syntax, filtering, and the key limitation is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 all four parameters are documented in the schema. The description's syntax notes (space-delimited AND, wildcard support) duplicate the keyword parameter's schema description verbatim and add no new semantics, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb and resource ('条文本文をキーワードで検索する') and clarifies the scope of results (節名と抜粋のみ, no article numbers). It distinguishes itself from get_law for accurate article text, but never contrasts with the sibling search_law, so the differentiation is only partial.

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 explicitly routes the agent to get_law when exact article text is needed, since search results omit article numbers, and it explains the accepted query syntax. It gives no guidance on when to prefer search_law or suggest_related, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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