条文の全文検索

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral context: the e-Gov API source, space-delimited AND semantics, that results include both the law and the matching sentence, and that top-ranked laws additionally report the article number. It is silent on rate limits, result ordering, or what happens when nothing matches, which are secondary gaps for a read-only search tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then mechanics, then the usage cue. The only mild redundancy is restating the space-delimited AND and article-locating behavior that the schema already covers.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating what is returned (matching laws and sentences, plus article numbers for the top laws). Combined with 100% schema coverage of the five parameters, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters including asof, limit, locate and law_type are already documented in the schema. The description's mentions of AND tokenization and article-number lookup duplicate the keyword and locate field descriptions rather than adding new meaning, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource: full-text keyword search over law body text ('法令の本文をキーワードで検索'), returning matching laws and sentences. This implicitly separates it from siblings like find_law (law lookup) and get_article (single article retrieval), but it never names an alternative explicitly, so the differentiation is left partly to inference.

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 a clear positive usage condition: use it to search cross-cutting provisions that share a phrasing such as '理由を示さなければならない'. It does not name when NOT to use it or point to a specific sibling for other cases, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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