法令を探す

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the response contents (ID, official name, type, current status), which is valuable with no output schema, and 一部から探し implies partial matching returning multiple hits. However it says nothing about result limits (the schema caps limit at 30), ordering, or the read-only nature of the operation.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the search action and returns before the secondary 'use it to get an ID for other tools' note. Every clause earns its place; no 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates returned fields and the ID-chaining purpose, which covers what an agent needs to route results downstream. It stops short of describing paging/limit behavior or whether multiple matches are returned by default.

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 description coverage is only 50%: title is documented in the schema, limit is not. The description reinforces title's partial-match semantics (法令名・略称の一部) but largely repeats the schema wording and says nothing at all about limit. It therefore does not fully compensate for the uncovered parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: search laws from part of a name or abbreviation, and it enumerates the returned fields (法令ID・正式名称・種別・現行かどうか). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search_law_text or get_article, but the scope is unambiguous enough that an agent can tell what it does.

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?

Explicitly names the downstream use case: look up a law ID to pass to other tools (他のツールに渡す法令IDを調べるときにも使います). This tells the agent when to reach for it as an entry point. There are no exclusions (e.g., when to prefer search_law_text instead), so it stops 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.