Japan Diet Speeches MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real traits — the call is free and capped at 3 hits. It says nothing about whether the keyword must be Japanese, how matching works, rate limits, or what a hit contains (snippet vs. ID for speech_text).

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 short sentence with the cost signal and the result cap front-loaded; nothing is padded and nothing repeats the tool name.

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?

The tool is simple (one required param, no output schema), but the definition leaves the agent guessing about keyword language/format and about what a 'hit' is, which matters given siblings speech_text and speech_search_pro. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and the single parameter has no description in the schema. The description only tells us the parameter is a 'keyword', without language, quoting, or matching semantics — minimal compensation for a completely undocumented 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search National Diet speeches') plus the result shape ('top 3 hits'), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It stops short of naming speech_search_pro as the alternative, though 'FREE' and 'top 3 hits' faintly imply the limited variant.

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 only implied: 'FREE' and 'top 3 hits' suggest a cheap trial lookup versus the sibling speech_search_pro, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement is given. The agent must infer the routing between the three siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions the maximum of 20 hits, but it does not disclose the subscriber/auth requirement despite a required access_token parameter, nor does it explain result ordering, pagination, or read-only behavior.

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 only two fragments, and the leading 'PRO.' plus unexplained 'Diet' add ambiguity rather than useful structure. It is short but under-specified for a tool with a required auth token and multiple parameters.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, three parameters, and only 33% schema description coverage, the description should do much more. It conveys only a rough result cap and leaves key context about authentication, result behavior, and sibling selection unaddressed.

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 only 33%, with just access_token documented in the schema. The description references keyword and a 20-hit cap, but it does not explain the limit parameter's range/default or how keyword matching works, so it does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 implies a keyword search returning speech hits with a cap of 20, so the broad purpose is inferable. However, 'PRO' and 'Diet' are unexplained, and there is no explicit verb or clear differentiation from speech_search beyond the vague 'PRO' label.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of speech_search or speech_text. The 'PRO' label hints at a premium variant but does not state the conditions or alternatives that would select this tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose authorization requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or return characteristics; the subscriber-token detail appears only in the schema's access_token field.

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 short sentence with no wasted language and front-loads the core action. 'PRO' is slightly cryptic, but the overall structure is maximally concise.

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 two-parameter lookup, the description is minimally sufficient: it says what is fetched and where the ID comes from. But with no annotations and no output schema, it could do more to clarify the expected return shape or authentication expectations beyond the schema's access_token field.

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 50%. The description adds useful provenance for speech_id by saying it comes from search results, while the access_token parameter is documented in the schema itself. This is adequate but not full compensation for the undocumented speech_id schema entry.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one speech by speechID.' It clearly identifies this as a single-item lookup rather than a search, implicitly distinguishing it from the speech_search siblings, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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 phrase '(from search results)' implies the speechID should come from prior search output, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus speech_search or speech_search_pro, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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