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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does useful work by disclosing that ranking is algorithmic and not human-curated, which an agent could not infer otherwise. It says nothing about result shape, pagination, or whether all entity types are searched together, leaving notable gaps.

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 definition is short and front-loads the resource scope before the Japanese-query constraint and the ranking caveat. The Japanese and English sentences partially duplicate each other, which is defensible for a bilingual tool but is redundant text.

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 4-parameter tool with one enum and no output schema, the description covers what is searchable and how results are ordered. It omits how limit/offset interact and gives no hint of the result structure, so an agent must infer pagination behavior from the schema alone.

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 50%: type and query are documented in the schema, while limit and offset have no descriptions anywhere. The description contributes the important constraint that queries must be Japanese, which the schema only hints at through examples. Still, the undocumented pagination parameters are not compensated for.

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 (search) plus an enumerated resource set: laws, bills, parties, Diet members, ministries, explainers. That makes the scope far clearer than a bare 'search' would. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with siblings like list or get, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 query must be in Japanese and warns that result order is machine-determined rather than curated, which implies keyword-lookup usage. However, it never says when to prefer this over list or get, nor when not to use it. Usage guidance is therefore implied rather than explicit.

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