search_kantoku_kijun

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a keyword search over a specific legal standard and adds useful scope context, but it does not describe result behavior, output format, or any limitations such as exact-match vs. fuzzy matching. For a non-mutating search tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first declares the core search action, the second lists the relevant standard topics, and the third clarifies a key application context. No filler or repetition.

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 the simple two-parameter schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what document to search, what topics are covered, and which facility types are included. The lack of an output schema and explicit return-value description is a minor gap for such a straightforward search tool.

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 value beyond the schema by enumerating the content areas covered (qualifications, equipment, childcare content, meals, health management) and by identifying 企業主導型保育 as within scope, which helps the agent choose effective keywords.

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) and a specific resource (認可外保育施設指導監督基準), and clarifies that this is the legal minimum standard for all unlicensed childcare facilities. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling law-related search tools by naming the exact document and domain.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: searching minimum standards for qualifications/staffing, equipment, childcare content, meals, and health management. It also explicitly notes that 企業主導型保育 falls under this standard. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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