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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it is 'information-only' and 'not a paid intermediary,' providing context about the tool's nature and constraints, thus going beyond the annotations.

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 very concise: it starts with the core purpose, then lists stages and constraints in a structured way. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, stages, default behavior, and a critical caveat (not combining with another tool). Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, single enum), it provides complete guidance for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning by explaining each stage (e.g., 'post_acquisition (default — 落札後の所有権移転登記; 司法書士が法律上ほぼ必須)'), which goes beyond the schema's enum labels.

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 the tool returns practitioners for auction-related stages, with specific resource ('士業') and verb ('返す'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on practitioner lookup, whereas siblings handle auction details, court directory, sales listings, and auction searches.

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 lists four specific stages with defaults, providing clear when-to-use context. It also explicitly warns against combining results with a grants-side tool, offering an important exclusion. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer alternative tools (e.g., get_court_directory).

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