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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds that each result includes an evidence URL proving existence in a public document, which is useful behavioral context, but with an output schema present, return-shape detail is largely unnecessary.

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?

Presented bilingually with the Japanese and English sections front-loaded and information-dense, though the bilingual duplication makes it longer than strictly necessary. Every sentence still carries routing or descriptive value.

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 low-complexity read-only search tool with a full schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does and when to prefer siblings. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it 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 100%, so all three parameters (query, limit, category) are already documented in the schema, including that query must be Japanese and examples. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (search), resource (JCCDB item catalogue, 95,403 items) and the kind of content returned (existence in public document + evidence URL). It also distinguishes itself from the work-category sibling ('工事カテゴリ(search_cost_category)に無い資材はこちら').

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?

Explicitly names what to use instead for regional, temporal, or price data ('地域・時点・価格は get_jccdb_observations') and for renovation work categories ('search_cost_category'). No explicit 'when not to use' exclusion beyond that, but the routing guidance is concrete.

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