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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two behaviors that matter most: authorization is restricted to API keys listed in ADMIN_EMAILS, and records are published immediately rather than queued for review. It omits duplicate-handling, validation failure behavior, and rate limits.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with the admin restriction first. Slight redundancy in stating admin-only twice (【管理者専用】 and the ADMIN_EMAILS clause), but nothing is padded.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers authorization, the source requirement, and the publish outcome, but leaves most domain parameters and the failure/duplicate path unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 64% across 11 parameters, and the description adds nothing beyond repeating that source_url is required (already in the schema). Fields like trades, prefectures, fulfillment, lead_time_days, and service_radius_km are left to sparse schema text with no usage examples or allowed-value hints.

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?

States a specific verb (登録する) and resource (実在業者), plus the distinguishing qualifiers: admin-only and sourced. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling register_contractor or list_pending_contractors, so the agent must infer that '承認済みで即掲載' means this path skips the review queue.

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 admin-only gate and the mandatory source_url implicitly define when this tool is callable, and '承認済みで即掲載' hints at the no-review workflow. But there is no explicit 'use register_contractor instead when…' routing or statement of what happens for non-admin keys.

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