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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine structural behavior (composition-ratio rows are returned attached to their package), but says nothing about pagination semantics beyond what offset/limit already imply, permissions, or result size.

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 core purpose, scope exclusion, and return shape are front-loaded in the Japanese text before the English gloss. Reasonably tight, though the bilingual duplication and parenthetical detail cost a little density.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description still notes the composition-ratio row attachment. All five parameters are documented in the schema, and the exclusion clause covers the main misuse case. A note on when to prefer sibling lookups would complete it.

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. The description goes slightly beyond by supplying a concrete value example (query='掘削', pref='東京都') that demonstrates how the two main parameters combine, which helps an agent build a valid first call.

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?

States a specific verb (引き/retrieve) and resource (工事の単価, public-works unit prices), and explicitly names what it is NOT (リフォームの見積単価). Combined with the title and sibling set (get_jccdb_labor_rate, get_us_construction_prices), an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Gives an explicit exclusion (renovation quote prices) and a worked query example (query='掘削', pref='東京都'), which clarifies intended usage. It does not, however, route the agent to related siblings such as search_jccdb_items or get_jccdb_labor_rate when the query is a labor rate rather than a package price.

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