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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. 'Keyword search' implies a read-only operation, and listing searchable fields adds context. However, it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it mention result format, pagination, or authorization requirements, leaving moderate gaps.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb ('パーツをキーワード検索') and immediately states the core function. Every word contributes value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 (one simple parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context for operation selection: it identifies the tool, its input semantics, and its scope. It could be improved by mentioning the return format or limit behavior, but the description is complete enough for a basic search tool.

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 0%, so the description must explain the 'query' parameter. It does so by specifying that the keyword applies to part number, description, and usage (型番/説明/用途), adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare 'string' type. Though it does not mention syntax or case sensitivity, it compensates adequately for a single parameter.

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 action ('パーツをキーワード検索' = keyword search parts) and the resource (parts), with the searched fields explicitly listed (型番/説明/用途). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like parts_list (which likely enumerates all parts) and parts_get (retrieves a specific part).

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 the tool is for keyword-based searching but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or compare with alternatives like parts_list. There is no exclusion or mention of when not to use it, so it earns an 'implied usage' score.

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