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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'secure' and 'instant' generation, but does not disclose security guarantees, RNG type, output format, default behavior, or side effects. With no annotations, this is a significant gap for a tool that creates outputs.

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 sentence with two short clauses, front-loading the core action ('generate secure passwords') and adding customization detail. There is no fluff or repetition, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and behavior. It does not mention whether the output is a string or array, how the count parameter affects results, or what happens if all character types are disabled. These omissions make the description incomplete for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a high-level mention of 'length and character types' but does not provide any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify edge cases such as count behavior or what happens if all character booleans are false.

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 states a specific verb-resource relationship: '安全なパスワードを即座に生成' (generate secure passwords instantly) and adds the customization scope '長さ・文字種をカスタマイズ' (customize length and character types). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hash-generator or uuid-generator, which serve different purposes.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The description does not mention that this is for password generation only, nor does it contrast with similar generators. It is adequate but lacks guidance.

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