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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety semantics. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic search action—it does not mention pagination limitations, data truncation, rate limits, or other operational traits that the agent might need to know. Schema descriptions contain such details, but the tool description itself adds no value here.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the main action and summarizes key search dimensions. It contains no filler and every word adds value, making it appropriately sized for its purpose.

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 tool's complexity (13 parameters) is fully addressed by a rich schema with 100% parameter descriptions and an output schema, the minimal tool description is sufficient to orient the agent. It does not need to repeat return-value details (covered by output schema) or enumerate all filters. A slightly more detailed overview could improve navigation, but the existing annotations and schema fill most gaps.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description lists a few parameter names (query, projectName, organizationName, lgCode, category) but does not add semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as value formats or constraints.

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 uses a specific verb (検索) and resource (公共調達情報), and further lists filterable parameters, making the tool's function unambiguous even without sibling context.

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 implies the tool is for searching public procurement information with detailed filters but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives (there are no sibling tools). The phrase '詳細な検索が可能です' gives a general sense of use, but no exclusions or situational recommendations are provided.

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