get_data_catalog

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent already knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds a behavioral hint about stability when narrowing candidates ('安定しやすい'), but does not disclose other traits like pagination or rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, 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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides actionable usage guidance relative to a sibling. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented. All parameters are described in the schema, annotations cover read-only safety, and the usage guidance clarifies the recommended workflow. Minor gaps like detailed filtering behaviors or examples are absent, but not critical given the schema and output schema. Overall, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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%, meaning each of the 10 parameters has a description in the schema. The tool description itself does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, but given full coverage, this is sufficient. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (取得する) and resource (データカタログ情報), and distinguishes itself from the sibling get_stats_list by explaining that get_stats_list is for broad search. This clearly tells an agent what this tool does and how it differs from a closely related alternative.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: for broad searches, use get_stats_list first, then narrow candidates with stats_code before calling get_data_catalog for stability. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions relative to a specific sibling tool.

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