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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: results are not saved or sent, missing company name/business summary/deadline must be omitted rather than guessed, and the output must include nextAction and readyToSendMessage rather than a vague 'consult an expert' summary. This gives the agent important operational expectations.

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 dense but front-loaded with the trigger conditions and then moves to output and safety constraints. It is longer than strictly necessary, especially the list of private-document examples, but every sentence adds useful operational guidance rather than filler.

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 read-only message-generation tool with no output schema, the description covers the output shape, safety behavior, and constraints well. The main remaining gaps are the slight ambiguity around consult_by and the lack of explicit mention of the issue topic enum, both of which the schema partially covers.

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 only 25%, but the description compensates by mapping most parameters: subsidy_name ('制度名'), source_url ('公式URL'), confirmed_facts ('確認済みの公開事実'), issues ('未確認論点'), company_name, public_business_summary, and application_deadline. It also adds what should not be placed in parameters. However, consult_by and the issue.topic enum are not explained in the description, so it is not fully complete.

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 states a specific verb and deliverable: it creates a copyable consultation message for a professional advisor, with nextAction and readyToSendMessage. It also names the trigger conditions (user wants to consider subsidy candidates, consult an expert, or ask what to do next) and clearly distinguishes this from sibling analysis/search tools by emphasizing message composition rather than eligibility assessment.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool and notes it can build on information from web search or other tools. It also gives constraints on what not to do (don't guess missing fields, don't include non-public data). It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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