search

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying the scope of search (multiple domains), which is not captured by annotations. However, it does not mention rate limits or result format, which would be helpful.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. The list of domains is informative but lengthy, making the second sentence slightly crowded. Still, it is efficient and clear.

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 description is adequate for a simple search tool with one parameter and complete annotations. However, it lacks details about output format or pagination, which would be beneficial for an agent to process results. With no output schema, more return context is desirable.

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% (one parameter 'query' with description). The description does not add new parameter details beyond the schema, such as query language or syntax tips. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high coverage, but no extra semantic enrichment.

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 that the tool performs a cross-domain search across 14 domains (though 12 are listed), with a specific verb '横断検索' (cross-search). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that are domain-specific (e.g., calendar_list, daily_life_search) by emphasizing simultaneous search across multiple domains.

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 usage when a broad search across many domains is needed, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool (e.g., when a single domain is sufficient) or provide alternative recommendations. The sibling tools are numerous, so clearer guidance would help, but the context is strong.

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