search_tsuuchi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 検索する conveys a non-mutating read operation and the domain scope is explicit, but behavior beyond that — result ordering, no-results handling, which fields are matched, pagination semantics — is undisclosed. Adequate for a simple search tool, but thin relative to the no-annotation context.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with verb and resource, and the second sentence earns its place by listing searchable content types that aid relevance judgment. There is minor redundancy — 通知を検索できる restates the operation already named in sentence one — which prevents 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?

For a simple 3-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, the callable surface is fully explainable and the purpose is clear. However, there is no output schema and no description of what results contain (titles, dates, links, snippets), and the potential overlap with siblings covering audit/seminar topics is never resolved. Adequate, but with clear gaps.

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%, and each parameter already carries a meaningful description: limit's default and maximum, keyword's space-separated AND-search semantics with examples, and category's partial-match behavior with examples. Per the rubric, the baseline is 3; the tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource — キーワード検索する over 企業主導型保育事業の通知・お知らせ一覧 — and enriches it with concrete content examples (助成決定、指導監査、セミナー、システム更新). This notice/announcement domain implicitly separates it from sibling tools that search laws, guidelines, unit prices, audit standards, and FAQ, though no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 scope statement implies when to use the tool — searching notices whose topics match the listed areas — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance or exclusionary language. With 7 sibling search tools, including search_kansa which could plausibly cover 監査-related content, the routing burden is left entirely to inference.

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