法令キーワード検索

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only references the underlying API endpoint (e-Gov法令API v2 GET /keyword) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, result limits, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The keyword search nature implies read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 sentence, concise and directly to the point. It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to parse. However, its brevity means it lacks explanatory richness that would make it more helpful, so it does not earn a 5.

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 there is no output schema and the tool is a search with pagination parameters (limit, offset), the description should explain expected return format or pagination behavior. It does not, and also lacks notes on result ordering or response structure. The tool is minimally complete but leaves gaps for an 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (keyword, limit, offset, law_type) have descriptive text. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it does align with the 'keyword' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: searching for laws containing a specified keyword in the law text ('法令本文内に指定したキーワードを含む法令を検索する'). It specifies the verb (search), resource (laws), and scope (keyword match). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'search_laws', so it only partially differentiates.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_laws. The description only states what it does, with no mention of use cases, exclusions, or comparative advantages. This leaves the agent to infer usage purely from the name.

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