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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions output fields (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified) but omits behavioral traits like read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Adequate for a simple search but not detailed.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with primary action and crucial registry context. Every sentence adds value with zero fluff.

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?

Given six parameters (none required), no output schema, and only partial schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It fails to detail important aspects like default limit, since behavior, status interpretation, or result structure beyond two fields. A more complete description would address these gaps.

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 50% (3 of 6 params have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. It neither compensates for undocumented parameters nor clarifies param usage (e.g., query syntax, since format). Baseline score due to partial coverage.

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 specifies the tool's function: 'Search Japanese license / registration ledgers' and lists exact registry categories (FSA menkyo: 金融商品取引業者, 預金取扱金融機関 …). It distinguishes from sibling watch tools like license_watch_get by emphasizing search and from other domain search tools by targeting Japanese financial licenses.

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 implies usage for searching multiple registries but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., license_watch_get or search tools for other jurisdictions). No exclusion criteria or context for when not to use.

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