search_speeches

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

As no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden. It states that the tool searches (implying read-only) and that conditions can be combined, but it does not mention output format, the AND logic for query, or the limit behavior, though the latter is in the schema. The behavioral disclosure is minimal beyond the core action.

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?

A single, dense sentence with no redundant content, opening directly with the action. Excellent conciseness.

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?

The absence of an output schema and sample usage leaves some ambiguity about the exact return structure. However, the parameter schema and the simple search intent make the tool adequately understandable. It might benefit from pointing to siblings or describing the result type, but current context is partly sufficient.

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?

All six parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description mentions the semantic groups (keyword, speaker, meeting, period) but does not add details beyond what the schema provides; the only incremental value is noting that the conditions are combinable. This warrants the baseline 3.

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 specifies a concrete action: searching speeches in the Japanese Diet records. It names the key filter dimensions (keyword, speaker, meeting name, date period), which clearly differentiates this from summarizing or analyzing tools in the sibling list.

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 conveys when to use the tool: when you need a list of speeches matching specific criteria. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, so while the context is clear, there is no direct 'when not to use' guidance.

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