名寄せ用の正規化キーを生成

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

With no annotations provided, the description does the heavy lifting and does disclose the transformation logic: removing legal entity suffixes, stripping whitespace, and normalizing via normalize_company_name. However, it omits details about the exact output format, edge cases (e.g., unrecognizable names), or whether the key is deterministic beyond the normalization step.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and then details the transformation. It is concise with no unnecessary filler.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough context: input is a corporate name, transformation is specified, and the output is implicitly a matching key. Missing edge cases and explicit return-type info are minor gaps for a tool of this simplicity.

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 already covers the only parameter 'name' with a clear description ('キーを生成したい法人名'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little parameter-specific detail beyond confirming that the input is a corporate name, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action: generating a normalization key for name matching from a corporate name, removing legal entity suffixes and whitespace. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing normalize_company_name as the dependency and framing the output as a matching key.

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 '名寄せ用' (for name matching) provides a clear use case, and the reference to normalize_company_name indicates a workflow dependency. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like compare_company_names or state when not to use this tool.

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