get_data_catalog_csv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'get' operation (implying read-only) and outputs CSV format, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a search/filter tool (given 10 parameters), pagination behavior (start_position, limit), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'data catalog information' specifically includes. For a 10-parameter tool with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that states the core purpose. It's appropriately concise and front-loaded with the essential action. However, given the tool's complexity (10 parameters), this extreme brevity leaves critical gaps in understanding.

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 high complexity (10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) but with an output schema present (which might describe the CSV structure), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the filtering/search capabilities implied by the parameters, the relationship to sibling tools, or behavioral context. The output schema may cover return values, but the description doesn't provide enough context for effective tool selection and use.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), and the tool has 10 parameters. The description provides zero information about any parameters—not explaining what 'search_word', 'stats_field', 'stats_code', 'gov_code', 'survey_years', 'open_years', 'stats_name_list', 'updated_date', 'start_position', or 'limit' mean or how they affect the CSV output. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'データカタログ情報をCSVで取得する' (Get data catalog information in CSV) states the basic action (get) and resource (data catalog information) with output format (CSV). However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'get_data_catalog' (which presumably returns non-CSV format) or 'get_meta_info_csv' (which might return metadata in CSV). The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_data_catalog' (non-CSV format), 'get_stats_list_csv' (statistics list in CSV), or 'get_meta_info_csv' (metadata in CSV). There's no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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