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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: local processing and no external data transmission, which is meaningful for privacy-sensitive manuscripts. However, it does not mention output format, limitations (e.g., only 1000+ words, how matching works), or whether it flags or replaces NG words.

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?

One concise sentence covers the core function (local NG word matching) and a critical privacy benefit, with no filler. The title adds the legal scope (薬機法・景表法) without 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?

For a simple tool with no output schema and no params, the description provides sufficient context: it checks against a large NG list, runs locally, and protects confidentiality. It lacks explicit instruction on how to provide input or what the result looks like, but this is minor for a browser-based utility.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so description need not explain them. Baseline 4 applies: the absence of params is compensated by the tool's nature as a browser-based local checker, and the description adds no parameter-related confusion.

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 it performs local matching against 1000+ NG words, and the title specifies it's for 薬機法/景表法 compliance. It's distinguishable from sibling tools like cvr-improvement-checker or similarity-checker, though it doesn't explicitly say 'input your manuscript' as a verb+resource structure.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies use for checking pharmaceutical/representation text but doesn't state prerequisites, target users, or scenarios where it should be preferred over other checkers in the sibling list.

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