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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description reveals that drafts are never returned, unpublished profiles yield not_found, and that the confirmation record is not independent fact-checking. This adds meaningful behavioral context that annotations do not cover.

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 mostly efficient and front-loaded, with the core action stated first. Each clause adds value (published-only, not_found behavior, verification caveat), though the Japanese and English versions repeat some content slightly, which prevents a 5.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned, the conditions for not_found, and an important caveat about the semantic weight of the confirmation. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100%, the schema already documents corporateNumber as a 13-digit string. The description merely repeats that it is a corporate number and does not add new meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get a published company-confirmed profile by corporate number'), lists the exact data returned (profile, source, dates, confirmation timestamp), and explicitly excludes drafts and unpublished states. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling press-oriented tools.

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 the correct use case: retrieving a profile that a company representative has confirmed and published, via a 13-digit corporate number. It states 'never returns drafts' and 'not_found' when unpublished, giving clear context and exclusions, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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