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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds real context beyond them: it is gated on the previewFingerprint, returns a re-confirmation request when problems or evaluations change, and only produces drafts for satisfiable bands while returning reasons for the rest. This partial-success semantics is exactly what an agent needs and is not in the annotations.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the fingerprint gating condition, then partial-result behavior, then downstream use. Every sentence carries information; no filler or repetition.

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 7-required-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the ordering precondition, the staleness/re-confirmation path, and partial band results, but leaves the shape of the response (links, draft identifiers) and the meaning of items/title unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would have to discover by calling.

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 only 43%, and the undocumented previewFingerprint is the critical gate; the description does add its meaning (must match the prior confirmation and input) and explains bands behavior (one draft per band, reasons for missing bands). However, items (variantId, patternCount, problemsPerPattern), title, and grade get no descriptive treatment, so it only partly compensates for the coverage gap.

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 action (creating difficulty-banded draft worksheets plus a confirmation link) and ties it to the same input and previewFingerprint used by the difficulty inventory check, which implicitly distinguishes it from inspect_math_difficulty_worksheets. It is slightly muddled by leading with 'リンクを作ります' while the tool name says worksheets, but the verb+resource is still identifiable.

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?

It implies the correct workflow order ('難度別の在庫確認と同じ入力・previewFingerprintで') so an agent can infer this must follow a prior inspection, but it never names inspect_math_difficulty_worksheets or states when not to use this tool versus create_math_worksheet. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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