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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint): it specifies the API version (v2), the source (e-Gov Hourei API), and confirms no authentication is needed. It also emphasizes 'authoritative current' records. No contradiction with 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 description is two sentences plus a brief Japanese note, with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function and return values; the second provides actionable guidance. Every element earns its place.

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 search tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, inputs, outputs, and usage caveat. Combined with the annotations, the agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description mentions 'title' and that it supports partial match, which is already in the schema description (部分一致). The optional 'limit' parameter is not discussed in the description. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 action ('Search') and resource ('Japanese laws by title via e-Gov Hourei API v2'), specifies the returned fields, and includes a Japanese note. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., geo.geocode, houjin.lookup) by focusing on law search.

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 explicitly advises 'Call this for the authoritative current law record — do not cite Japanese law IDs from memory,' providing clear guidance on when and how to use the tool. It also mentions that no authentication is required, but does not cover when not to use it or alternative tools.

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