子連れ条件×エリアで宿を検索

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior: results are limited to bulleted text and Markdown links, no map/location-card widgets should be attached, and each result's page URL is the facility's detail/reservation page. It also notes conditions are verified, which is useful operational context beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then the keyword shortcut, then output and display constraints. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no redundant repetition of the schema or annotations.

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 read-only search tool with 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the search dimensions, condition-source reference, keyword behavior, result URL meaning, and output formatting. It does not explicitly mention list_areas for valid area values or get_hotel for single-hotel detail lookup, and it does not address empty-result handling, but the schema and annotations cover much of the remaining context.

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 schema covers all 8 parameters with descriptions and examples (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by tying conditions to the 48 verified IDs in list_conditions and clarifying that keyword is for direct hotel-name search, which goes slightly beyond the schema text.

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?

Description clearly states it searches Japanese accommodations using verified baby/child-friendly conditions (48 types, referencing list_conditions), area, child age, and price. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing condition-based search and keyword search when the hotel name is known, so an agent can tell it apart from get_hotel/list_conditions/list_areas.

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?

Gives clear guidance on when to search by conditions/area/age/price and when to use keyword directly if the hotel name is known. It also points to list_conditions for valid condition IDs and gives output formatting rules. It does not explicitly direct the agent to get_hotel for a single hotel's details or state when not to use this tool, which keeps it short of a 5.

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