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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context: the tool provides general knowledge content rather than a custom assessment, is applicable outside Japan, and is based on 30 years of field experience. 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 efficiently front-loaded with the core purpose and content topics, and every clause adds value—coverage areas, language agnosticism, and basis of authority. The bilingual duplication is acceptable given the tool's context, and there is no wasted content.

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?

The tool has no parameters, an output schema is present, and the description fully explains the tool's scope and content. It covers what the tool returns, how general it is, and why it is trustworthy. No additional context is needed for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns without needing to explain input semantics. It also indirectly clarifies there is no filtering or user-input dependency by describing the output as universal.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'returns universal principles for judging whether ANY construction or renovation estimate is honest.' It also lists concrete content areas (overhead ratio, 一式 entries, sales tactics), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_estimate or check_red_flags that perform targeted checks rather than provide general principles.

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 communicates clear context for use: it is a language-agnostic, universal guide applicable to any estimate, not a Japan-specific or single-estimate tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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