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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing the safety profile. The description adds context (Japanese district court, lookup by code) but does not disclose additional behaviors such as rate limits or authentication requirements. With annotations present, this is adequate.

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 short (two sentences, bilingual) and front-loaded. It conveys the essential information efficiently, though the Japanese and English versions are somewhat redundant.

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 one parameter, full schema coverage, and informative annotations, the description fully covers what is needed. It tells the agent what the tool does and how to use the parameter, leaving no 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 description coverage is 100%: the parameter 'court_code' is documented with examples. The description only restates 'by code' without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: to retrieve Japanese district court directory info (contact/jurisdiction) by code. It uses specific verbs (look up, 取得) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on auctions.

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 implies usage when a court code is available and directory info is needed, but it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. Since siblings are all unrelated (auctions), the lack of exclusions is acceptable but not ideal.

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