search_pesticides

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool searches and returns registration information. It does not disclose whether it is read-only, any authentication or rate limits, or the behavior when multiple parameters are given. For a search tool, more behavioral details are needed.

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 only two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and the searchable fields. The second adds a critical caveat. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary words.

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 that the tool has 5 optional parameters with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain pagination (limit), how the search works (e.g., fuzzy matching, exact match), or what fields are in the output. The caveat is helpful but does not compensate for the missing behavioral and parameter details.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only lists the parameter names (農薬名・登録番号・有効成分・農薬の種類) without explaining their format, constraints, or how they combine (e.g., AND or OR). The 'limit' parameter is mentioned in the schema but not in the description. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the field names.

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 that the tool searches basic pesticide information by name, registration number, active ingredient, or pesticide type. It explicitly mentions the resource (pesticide basic information). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_pesticide_by_register_no' or 'check_registered_use', but the broader search scope is implied.

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 a usage caveat: '結果は登録情報の検索結果であり、使用可否の判定ではない。' This tells the agent that the result is not a judgment of usability. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it beyond the caveat.

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