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

With no annotations, the description itself must communicate behavior. It states that the result is a summary list, not the full item, and that results can be narrowed by insurance and kind. This is reasonably transparent for a read-only list operation, though it does not specify output fields or limits.

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 three short clauses: what it lists, how to filter, and where to get details. No filler; the most important information is front-loaded.

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 list tool with no output schema, it states that output is a summary list but not what fields it contains. In particular, it does not say whether the summary includes an identifier needed to call jhnrd_get_item, so an agent may not know how to chain the tools.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds only the fact that insurance and kind act as filters, which is marginal beyond the schema; it does not explain parameter formats or interactions.

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 opens with a concrete action: '収録している項目の一覧(要約)' (a summary list of contained items), then names the two filtering dimensions, insurance and kind. It also points to jhnrd_get_item for details, which separates this list tool from the detail-retrieval sibling.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use this tool for a filterable summary list, and use jhnrd_get_item when full detail is needed. It does not explicitly exclude jhnrd_search or jhnrd_list_sources, but the summary-versus-detail routing is enough to guide selection.

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