48条件の定義一覧

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side effects. The description adds that the tool returns all definitions and enumerates the fields, which is consistent but does not introduce significant behavioral traits beyond what the annotations provide.

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 that states the purpose first and packs the return fields into a parenthetical list. There is no filler or redundant information; every part of the 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?

For a simple parameterless listing tool, the description tells the agent exactly what will be returned and why it exists. The absent output schema is compensated by the explicit field list, and annotations cover operational behavior, so nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description's emphasis on '全定義' (all definitions) confirms the tool takes no filters and returns the complete set, which is appropriate for this zero-parameter design.

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 uses a specific verb ('返します' – returns) and a precise resource ('子連れ条件の全定義' – all definitions of child-friendly conditions), and it lists the return fields (id, label, target age, facility count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_areas and search_hotels, which are about areas and hotel search rather than condition meta-definitions.

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 phrase '検索に使える' (usable for search) provides clear context that this is a reference list intended to be used with search_hotels. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the intended usage context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to call this tool.

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