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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the full behavioral burden and meets it. It discloses the critical consent contract — application contents must be shown and explicit agreement obtained before confirm=true — and the preview behavior when confirm=false. It also conveys that this triggers a real-world outbound purchase request, which is essential context for an agent.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: trigger conditions, exclusion rule, optional preferred date-time fields, and the mandatory consent workflow. The 【重要】 marker calls out the critical safety step. It is slightly dense and the consent warning sits toward the end rather than being front-loaded, but this length is justified for an 11-parameter real-world mutation tool.

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?

The invocation flow is thoroughly covered: when to trigger, what data to collect, optional fields, and the confirm/preview contract. The main gap is the post-success outcome — there is no output schema and the description never states what happens once confirm=true (what the tool returns or what the user should be told next), which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds mild cross-parameter context — preferred_1~3 are optional up to the third choice, confirm=false returns a preview — but most of this is already present in the individual schema property descriptions (e.g., confirm already states 未確認なら false（プレビューが返る）). Little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb (申し込む/apply), a specific resource (無料の出張買取 for bikes/scooters/mopeds), and concrete user-intent triggers (「売りたい／申し込みたい／来てほしい／査定に来て／引き取ってほしい／廃車にしたい／処分したい」) that should fire this tool. It explicitly distances itself from get_price, allowing an agent to distinguish it from siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use conditions via concrete user utterances and an explicit when-not-to-use rule naming the alternative: '単に相場を知りたいだけの段階では使わず、その場合は get_price を使うこと'. This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection and directly routes the agent to the correct sibling.

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