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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the read-only and open-world aspects. The description adds little beyond the annotation: it states 'List' which aligns with the read-only hint, but does not clarify that results are limited by the limit parameter (default 20) or that the open-world hint means results may not be exhaustive. It is not contradictory, but it offers minimal added behavioral context.

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 concise, with the primary action front-loaded in both Japanese and English. It consists of one sentence with no fluff, and every phrase adds direct value. The bilingual redundancy is acceptable for international contexts without wasting space.

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 read-only list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and input. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., an array of press releases) or any pagination behavior beyond what the limit parameter schema implies. Since no output schema exists, the description could have offered more context about the return values, but the core information needed to call the tool is present.

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%, and both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description reiterates the key point (name or 13-digit corporate number) but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters fully.

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 states the verb (list/取得), the resource (published press releases), and the scoping (for one company by name or corporate number). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'one company', which contrasts with search_press that likely searches across companies, and from get_press_article which targets a single release.

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 context: it is for a single company's press releases. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like search_press for cross-company searches or get_press_article for a specific release. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it falls short of a 4.

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