診療報酬マスター取り込み

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the primary effect (fetch and import) and the one-time nature, but fails to disclose the 'force' parameter semantics, whether imports overwrite existing data, potential network/time requirements, or any side effects on the local DB. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating operation.

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 concise, three short sentences, with the main action front-loaded, followed by a clear usage hint, then a compact parameter list. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool is simple (2 params, output schema exists), the description covers the core purpose, the one-time setup role, and kind values, which is adequate for basic invocation. However, it omits the force semantics, explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, and any prerequisites like network access, leaving gaps that an agent would need to infer.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'kind' with its three enum values (shinryo, iyakuhin, tokutei) and their meanings, but it does not describe the 'force' parameter at all. Half of the parameters are left unexplained, and the description only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 retrieves the official master from the medical fee information service and imports it into the local DB, with a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from search siblings by explicitly noting it is a one-time setup action and that subsequent searches work offline, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage context: '初回のみ実行が必要' (needs to be executed only once initially) and states that subsequent searches work offline, implying it should be run before using search tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of fully explicit routing.

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