診療ガイドライン探索

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals an important limitation: Minds search results are rendered in-browser and cannot be mechanically retrieved, so only a URL is provided. It also states the output structure (PubMed results and a Minds URL). This goes beyond what an agent could infer from the 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence with two clauses that convey purpose, method, and a key limitation. Every phrase earns its place, and the limitation about Minds is essential behavioral context. Slightly more could be said about parameters, but that is a completeness concern, not a conciseness issue.

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?

While an output schema exists (relieving the need to describe return values), the description omits parameter usage details (limit, year_from) and any differentiation from sibling tools. Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, one required) and the lack of annotations, this is a notable gap. The description covers the core purpose and one behavior limitation, but not enough for confident 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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It addresses 'topic' implicitly ('あるトピック') but does not explain 'limit' (default 20) or 'year_from' (nullable) at all. Two of three parameters lack semantic meaning beyond their names and types, leaving agents to guess their effect.

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: finding clinical practice guidelines for a topic. It specifies the resource (PubMed with guideline[pt] filter) and the Minds guideline library, and mentions the output is results plus a URL. This differentiates it from siblings like search_pubmed, which likely handles general PubMed searches, even though no explicit comparison is made.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not reference sibling tools such as search_pubmed or fetch_drug_entry, nor does it state conditions or exclusions. The purpose implies use for guideline searches, but the usage context is not articulated.

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