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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the paid nature, the 402 challenge, the receipt upon settlement, and the beta access unlocking. This is transparent about the core behavior, though it doesn't confirm read-only or destructive nature (likely read).

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds essential context (payment, return format, beta status). It is slightly lengthy but each sentence provides unique value.

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?

Given the complexity (paid, beta, raw log), the description covers payment mechanism, return type, and beta terms. No output schema exists, so missing output details is acceptable. It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand usage and consequences.

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?

There is one parameter (corporate_id) with 100% schema description coverage (13-digit Japanese corporate number). The description adds meaning by linking the parameter to insured headcount data, enhancing beyond the schema.

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 'Un-aggregated month-over-month insured headcount deltas (健康保険・厚生年金) for one Japanese corporate number,' specifying the verb (get raw log), resource (pension headcount), and scope (per corporate number). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_gazette_financials which deal with financial data.

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 includes payment context ('each call costs 0.05 USDC') and the return behavior ('HTTP 402 payment challenge'), which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives beyond the payment model.

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