住所を検索

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavior such as automatic absorption of variant characters (ケ/ヶ/ヵ) and implies output includes URIs by referencing passing them to get_address_location. It does not mention performance limits or whether it is read-only, but for a search tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 consists of two succinct sentences. The first sentence states the core action and data source, and the second provides important behavioral detail and a pointer to a sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted 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?

The description is reasonably complete for a search tool: it explains the matching method, variant handling, and that shape data must be obtained elsewhere. However, it does not detail the exact output format or fields (e.g., whether results include labels or just URIs), and with no output schema or annotations, this gap remains. The note about passing URI to get_address_location partially compensates.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information. The schema covers query and prefecture with descriptions (67% coverage), but the tool description does not elaborate on limit or provide any additional meaning beyond what the schema states. Since coverage is not high (>80%) and the description does not compensate, this is a weak area.

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 the tool searches for address candidates by partial matching of address labels using Address LOD. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly directing users to pass the resulting URI to get_address_location for shape data, clarifying its role as a search tool.

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 explicit guidance for using an alternative: pass the URI to get_address_location when shapes are needed. It implies search_address is for finding candidate URIs, but does not mention other sibling tools like list_prefectures or reverse_geocode_address, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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