search_places

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 the search scope and filterable dimensions, and '検索します' implies a read-only, list-returning operation, but it does not mention pagination behavior, default ordering, or the shape of returned records. This is adequate for a search tool, though thin on result semantics.

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 sentence that front-loads the core function (search venues in Saga) before the filtering capabilities. There is no filler, no repetition of schema content, and no redundant phrasing — every clause earns its place.

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 13-parameter tool, the input side is fully covered by the description plus the 100%-coverage schema. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves return shape and result semantics unspecified, and it gives no guidance on how results relate to get_place_detail. It is adequate but has 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%, so every one of the 13 parameters is already described in the schema, making the baseline of 3 appropriate. The description adds modest value by grouping parameters into semantic categories (keyword, category, facilities, price, capacity) that help an agent map natural-language requests to parameter groups, but it contributes no per-parameter detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource: '検索します' (searches) for event spaces, hotels, and social gathering venues within Saga Prefecture. It also enumerates the filter dimensions (keyword, category, facilities, price, capacity), which cleanly separates this list/search tool from siblings like get_place_detail (single-record lookup) and create/update/delete_place (mutations).

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 implies when to use the tool — when an agent needs to find Saga venues matching keyword, category, facility, price, or capacity criteria — but never states it explicitly. It provides no exclusions and does not name alternatives (e.g., 'for a single place's full details use get_place_detail'), leaving routing entirely to inference from sibling names.

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