施設の検証済み詳細

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description adds useful behavior: the response contains evidence notes, sources, and a verification date, and the output rendering must be text/Markdown only with no map or place-card widgets. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the retrieval purpose and contents, and the second gives a crisp rendering constraint. Every sentence 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?

With one required parameter, no output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, how it is selected, and how it must be presented. The absence of detailed response formatting is acceptable given the low complexity of the tool.

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 100%, and the schema already explains that slug is the facility slug included in search_hotels results. The description only repeats 'slug指定' and adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 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 states a specific action ('返します') and a concrete resource: facility conditions with per-facility evidence notes, kids' equipment, access, sources, and verification date, retrieved by slug. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling search/list tools, which operate at a different level of granularity.

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 gives clear context: call it with a slug to get the full verified detail payload, and then present the result as text/Markdown links without widgets. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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