search_kansa

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the useful default behavior that omitting doc_type searches all 7 documents, but does not describe result format, matching behavior, or any other operational traits beyond the search operation itself.

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?

Three compact sentences contain the essential information: purpose, use cases, and default filter behavior. There is no filler or redundancy, and the most important scoping detail is front-loaded.

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 simple search tool, the description is nearly complete: it defines the document domain, use scenarios, and default cross-document behavior, while schema covers keyword, limit, and doc_type enum. It does not explicitly describe the return payload, but that is reasonably implied by the search operation and the absence of an output schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that doc_type defaults to a cross-search of all 7 documents and by naming the document categories. The limit parameter is left to the schema, which already documents it fully.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: keyword search over audit-related documents for employer-led childcare businesses, and enumerates the document categories (指導・監査評価基準, 専門的財務監査基準, 専門的労務監査基準等). This scope is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like search_law, search_faq, and search_tsuuchi.

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?

Provides clear use context: '監査準備、自主点検、帳簿・書類の確認等に使用' tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is concrete and sufficient.

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