国会答弁・発言を検索

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses default behavior (returns 400-character excerpt) and the full_text parameter effect, but does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or any destructive aspects. It covers basic behavior but lacks depth.

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 very concise: four sentences in Japanese, totaling about 150 characters. It front-loads the core action and immediately provides context. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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 8 parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the default behavior (excerpt vs. full text) and filtering options. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., list of objects, sorting), pagination details, or how to handle empty results, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it repeats the default excerpt length and full_text behavior, but does not provide significantly new semantic context for parameters like 'from', 'until', or 'speaker'.

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: full-text search of Japanese National Diet minutes from 1947 to latest, with specific filtering options (speaker, house, meeting, date range). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'search_meetings' by focusing on speeches rather than meetings, even if not explicitly stated.

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 lists use cases (policy research, media, lobbying, compliance) but does not provide explicit guidance on when NOT to use the tool or when to prefer the sibling tool 'search_meetings' instead. Usage context is implied but not clearly delineated.

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