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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns information (ranges, formats, counts), but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or authentication requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It packs the returned information efficiently, though the parenthetical about educational kanji and kanken levels adds slight density.

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 should explain return values. It lists the main categories returned (range, format, question count), which is adequate for a simple query tool, but it lacks detail on the structure or format of those returns, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It references '指定した字' (specified characters), which gives meaning to the single 'chars' parameter as the characters to inspect, but it does not explain that the parameter is an array, that it is optional, or that it has a max of 24 items.

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 states a specific verb ('返します' / returns) and resources (range of kanji worksheets, formats, question counts). It clearly identifies the tool's function as a query/check operation, but does not differentiate it from siblings like create_kanji_worksheet.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. However, the tool name and description imply it is used to check available ranges before creating worksheets, which is a reasonable implied usage context.

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