search_faq

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It makes clear the tool performs a keyword search over official Q&A, which implies read-only behavior, but it does not mention result format, ranking, pagination, or access limits. This is adequate for a simple search tool but not deeply transparent.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the operation and target, and the second adds valuable scope information. It avoids repeating schema details.

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?

For a straightforward three-parameter search tool with full schema descriptions, the description and schema together give enough information for an agent to invoke it correctly. The lack of an output schema and explicit return-value documentation is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already documents keyword, limit, and category with examples. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond restating the broad content areas. Per the baseline for fully covered schemas, a score of 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 states a specific verb ('キーワード検索する'), a clear resource ('企業主導型保育事業のFAQ'), and the content scope ('制度・申請・共同利用・公金管理システム'). This makes the tool clearly distinguishable from sibling law/standard search tools by targeting official Q&A content.

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 this tool is for FAQ keyword searches and lists relevant domains, giving useful context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer search_faq over sibling tools such as search_law or search_kantoku_kijun. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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