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 the return shape in detail: item data, deliberation history, party-level and member-level votes, external links, and typed relations. It omits error behavior for bad ids and any limits on payload size, but for a read-only lookup tool the substantive behavioral disclosure is present.

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 Japanese sentences are front-loaded with the core action and then the payload, and every clause adds information. The trailing English sentence largely duplicates the first Japanese sentence, which is a minor redundancy rather than a real defect.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain both purpose and returns — and it does so with concrete content categories and relation examples. The remaining gap is failure modes and any freshness/caching behavior, which are secondary for a lookup 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 100% and the enum of 11 type values is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by stating that both type and id must be taken from search results, which is provenance guidance the schema does not provide.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('1件をくわしく見る' / 'Get one item') and enumerates the payload (facts, deliberation history, per-party and per-member votes, official site/SNS) plus the link graph (member→party, law→ministry, party→vote stance). That is far more specific than the bare name 'get' and implicitly separates it from search/list by fetching a single item. It stops short of naming a sibling as the contrasting alternative, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

It states the prerequisite workflow ('type と id は search の結果のものを使う'), which tells an agent to run search first. However, it never says when to prefer this over list or search, nor what to do when the id is unknown or invalid. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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