不動産情報検索・分析 MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only search operation with potentially incomplete data. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations - it mentions '詳細な検索が可能です' (detailed search is possible) which suggests filtering capabilities, but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, result format, or pagination behavior. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not rich behavioral details.

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 appropriately concise - a single sentence in Japanese followed by its English translation. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists parameter examples. There's no wasted space, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from parameter examples.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and mentions available parameters but doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, or any limitations. The annotations help, but without an output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about result format and typical use cases.

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%, so all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description lists example parameter types ('検索クエリ、件名、機関名、都道府県コード、カテゴリなど') which provides a high-level overview but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema 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: '公共調達情報を検索します' (searches public procurement information). It specifies the resource (public procurement information) and verb (search), but doesn't distinguish from siblings since there are none. The description is specific about what can be searched but doesn't fully articulate the scope or output format.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the available parameters but doesn't indicate typical use cases, prerequisites, or constraints. With no sibling tools, the bar is lower, but there's still no contextual guidance about appropriate search scenarios or limitations.

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