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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of match semantics (prefix vs substring), minimum query length, pagination behavior, or response shape.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no padding, and the resource and query fields are front-loaded. It is efficient but under-specified rather than verbose.

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 paginated search tool with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell how matching works, what a page returns, or how this differs from kodepos_list.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains that 'q' accepts a village name or postal code, but says nothing about the minLength of 2, paging defaults, or the 100-item cap, leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 verb (search) and resource (villages), with the two queryable fields (name, postal code) stated. It does not distinguish this from siblings kodepos_get and kodepos_list, so an agent must infer the boundary between searching, listing, and fetching a single record.

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?

There is no indication of when to choose this over kodepos_list (browse all) or kodepos_get (fetch one), and no mention of page/per_page behavior or result limits. Usage is only implied by the word 'search'.

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