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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trademark: it separates design-controllable metrics (judged) from real-world tests/applications (marked as '要対応') and explicitly promises honesty ('盛らない'). This tells the agent what to expect in terms of output nuance, though it does not mention side effects or return format.

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?

Two dense sentences pack the purpose, scope, and behavioral policy without redundancy. Key information is front-loaded: '機械チェック' leads, then certifications, then the honesty clause. No filler words.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 required param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it explains the input type, what is checked, and the honesty policy. The only gap is an explicit description of the return value or output format, but that is not critical for a check tool of this simplicity.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters with a description ('評価したいデバイスを言葉で'). The tool description adds semantic context by linking '言葉から設計したデバイス' to the prompt parameter, clarifying that the prompt should be the verbal device description. This goes beyond the bare schema and helps the agent construct meaningful input.

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 names a specific action ('機械チェック') and a specific resource ('デバイスの規制適合'), listing concrete certification standards (技適/PSE/CE/FCC/RoHS) and supply-chain aspects (発注先+部品調達). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like eval_device or manufacturing_readiness, which likely focus on other evaluation or production-readiness aspects.

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 when to use the tool: when you have a device designed from a text description and need a compliance check. It also states the scope (regulatory certifications + ordering + parts) without naming alternatives or exclusions. While not explicit about comparing to siblings, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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