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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add useful constraints: limited free preview (7 days / 10 items) and no postponement/cancellation history. It still omits return format, pagination behavior, authentication needs, and whether results are ordered or truncated in other ways.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The main search capability is front-loaded and the availability caveats follow compactly.

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 an 8-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and important availability limits. It remains incomplete on parameter formats and return-value behavior, which an agent would need in order to invoke it precisely.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It conceptually covers date, time range, debut-only, and genre, but omits the keyword and limit parameters and provides no format guidance for date/time strings or what 'debut_only' means in practice.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('配信予定を...検索') and names the filter dimensions: JST date, time range, debut candidates, and genre. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but none of the siblings are similar search tools, so the purpose remains clear.

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 when the tool is useful by listing searchable dimensions and disclosing that free previews are limited to 7 days and 10 items, and that postponement/cancellation history is unavailable. However, it does not name alternative tools or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions beyond those availability caveats.

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