QUERY_DOCUMENT_SET

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 implies a read/query operation but does not state that it is non-destructive, what the query returns, whether results are paginated or ranked, or any permission requirements.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized for what it conveys, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

With three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain at least the nature of the query results and its read-only character. It does neither, leaving the agent to guess at behavior for a tool whose return value is the whole point.

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 of the three parameters already has a short Japanese description in the schema. The tool description adds no meaning beyond those labels, so the baseline 3 for fully documented parameters 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 names a specific verb (自然言語クエリを実行) and resource (指定されたドキュメントセット), so the agent knows it runs an NL query against a document set. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling QUERY_DOCUMENT_LIBRARY, which shares nearly identical phrasing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over QUERY_DOCUMENT_LIBRARY or LIST_DOCUMENT_SET, nor any prerequisite or exclusion stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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