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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the return content (the separator sentence plus the YOI address), which is valuable since there is no output schema. It says nothing about read-only semantics, permissions, or pagination beyond the limit parameter, and 'YOI の住所' is left unexplained.

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 short sentences with the resource description front-loaded and the query filter second; nothing is wasted, though the telegraphic style and undefined term 'YOI' cost some clarity.

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 two-parameter list tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers what is listed and what is returned. It falls short on explaining the specialized vocabulary and on where this tool sits relative to get_paper and search_papers.

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% and both parameters already document their defaults and examples, so the baseline is 3. The description's query note largely restates the schema's own '語を含む' wording without adding syntax or matching behavior beyond it.

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 concrete verb and resource: a list of papers whose subtitle reads '分離子は、…', returning the separator sentence and the YOI address. The narrow, pattern-based scope is implicitly distinct from a general paper search, but no sibling is named, so differentiation from search_papers rests on 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?

The second sentence implies the usage rule — pass query to narrow to separators containing that word, omit it to get the newest-first list — but this is framed as a parameter note rather than guidance on when to choose this tool over search_papers or get_paper.

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