日本企業をリード条件で検索

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions the data source, database size, and filter criteria, but does not describe pagination behavior, rate limits, data freshness, or the exact fields returned in the response. The default sorting order and query limits are not disclosed. While adequate, there are gaps that an agent would benefit from.

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 paragraph that starts with the purpose, lists key filters, and ends with usage guidance for sibling tools. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff. It is concise yet informative.

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 moderate complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a good overview but does not specify the response format or what fields (besides corporate_number) are returned. It does not mention sorting, result ordering, or any limitations on combining filters. The connection to sibling tools is helpful, but completeness is adequate, not excellent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some extra context for with_subsidy_history (signals budget-winning ability) but largely just lists filter options without adding significant meaning beyond the schema. The description does not deeply explain parameter usage or constraints (e.g., how partial matching works for name).

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 it searches for Japanese company data from a specific government database (gBizINFO) for sales leads, listing multiple filter criteria (prefecture, employees, capital, etc.). It also explains how the output (corporate_number) can be used with sibling tools (get_company_profile, get_company_subsidies), effectively distinguishing this search tool from the detail retrieval 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 implies when to use this tool: for initial discovery of potential leads, and that the resulting corporate_number can be passed to get_company_profile and get_company_subsidies for detailed information. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context with siblings is clear enough for an AI agent to understand the workflow.

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