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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by disclosing the three possible result statuses and, critically, that not_found_in_checked_records is not proof of no action because actions no longer published are not returned. It also states what each result carries (type, date, reason as published, source file, as-of date), giving the agent real confidence bounds.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the decision question and the lookup keys before the return-status detail. It is dense with parentheticals and would scan slightly better as a short list, but almost every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 an output schema already existing, the description adds the epistemic caveat about not_found results that the schema cannot express, and covers input forms, filters and result fields. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or interpret a negative result is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds behavioral meaning the schema lacks: partial name input yields candidates rather than a hard miss, and it supplies concrete identifier examples (1708000404, 1704019156). It does not discuss limit or prefecture semantics, which stay in 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?

Opens with a concrete question the tool answers ('has this TITP supervising or implementing organization in Japan had an administrative action published by ISA, and when?') and names the exact resources used to look it up. It is clearly distinct from the sibling titp_action_changes, which is the change feed rather than a point lookup.

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?

States the lookup keys (permit number, certification number, organization name) and clarifies that exact names match after normalization while partial names return candidates, which guides invocation choice. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over titp_action_changes or get_receipt, so the when-not guidance is implicit.

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