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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds deterministic keyword routing (not an LLM), verify and limits in every reply, data sources, and explicit out-of-scope handling. No annotation contradictions are present.

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 content is front-loaded and well structured with headings, examples, and clear exclusions. However, it duplicates the full description in English and Japanese, which adds length without new information for a reader of either language.

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 in the description. Annotations and 100% schema coverage handle safety and parameters, while the description supplies scope, exclusions, routing behavior, and output guarantees, making the definition complete.

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 ask, ref, work, and amount are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the single-sentence entry point and gives examples, but does not add per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (check/route) and resource (Japan construction or renovation quotes, JCCDB, Bitcoin-anchored verification records), and positions itself as the single entry point for four routing directions. This differentiates it from the sibling sub-tools such as run_full_audit or scan_tactics.

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?

Provides explicit USE WHEN and DO NOT USE WHEN sections with concrete conditions and examples. It also states that out-of-scope requests return an appropriate outside destination rather than failing, which is unusually clear routing guidance.

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