nar_horse_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic function, omitting details such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential destructive effects. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 consists of two sentences, which is concise. However, it lacks a structured breakdown of functionality and parameters. While succinct, the efficiency is undercut by missing critical information.

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 the tool's complexity (querying race history) and the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return format, pagination, sorting, or any filtering beyond the parameters. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool 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?

The input schema has two parameters with 0% coverage (no descriptions in schema). The tool description does not explain what 'horse_name' or 'year_from' mean, nor does it clarify usage like valid formats or default behavior. The agent cannot infer parameter semantics from the description alone.

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 clearly states it retrieves past race history for NAR local horse racing horses. It uses a specific verb (取得) and resource (馬の過去レース戦績). The inclusion of 'NAR地方競馬' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'horse_history', though it could be more explicit about the 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'horse_history' for JRA racing). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide to invoke this tool over siblings.

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