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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description meaningfully adds behavior context: closed corporations are included, multiple hits require address-based confirmation, pagination is driven by mayHaveMore, and users must see the notice source and non-guarantee. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Four short sentences each carry distinct, decision-relevant information: result fields, closed-entity inclusion, disambiguation rule, pagination behavior, and notice handling. The operational claim is front-loaded and no sentence is wasted.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential result fields, pagination, disambiguation, and user-facing notice requirements. It would be more complete with an explicit statement about result count or output shape, but the provided information is sufficient for a competent agent to invoke and handle the tool 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 description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains the name parameter through '法人名検索' and gives page semantics via the mayHaveMore instruction, but it does not mention the address_code parameter, which is left to the schema. The added pagination guidance provides some value beyond the schema, but coverage remains incomplete.

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 identifies the operation: search the NTA corporate registry for official name, corporate number, address, and closure status, including closed entities. It goes beyond the tool name by specifying the data source and result fields, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as search_companies or get_corporate_identity.

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?

It provides concrete usage guidance: do not automatically resolve same-name companies, confirm by address, advance the page when mayHaveMore is true, and present the notice's source and disclaimer to users. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over sibling alternatives or when not to use it.

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