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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful non-obvious behavioral context: listed corporate numbers do not imply fact-checking, and content is not independently verified. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 core description is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource, but it repeats the category enum that is already fully specified in the input schema. The bilingual duplication adds length without new information, preventing a higher score.

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?

With no output schema, the description does explain some return values (corporate number, source, publication classification) and adds a caveat about verification. However, it leaves out details about result ordering, pagination, and how the filters combine, so an agent has to infer behavior beyond the schema.

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 schema fully documents all six parameters. The description repeats the category enum and mentions return fields, but it does not add interpretive meaning for parameters such as query, since, or company beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: searching published Japanese company announcements and returning registered corporate number, source, and publication classification. It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_company_press, so it misses the top score.

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 a broad search use case through phrases like '検索します' and the category list, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. Usage context is present only implicitly; no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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