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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral detail by listing the return fields (order date, contract title, amount, ministry) and implies a read-only operation. It adds value beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 tight two-sentence paragraph, front-loading the core purpose and then the return details. Every clause earns its place, with no fluff. The analogy to USAspending is efficient and aids comprehension without padding.

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?

Without an output schema, the description covers the essential return fields. It does not mention error cases, rate limits, or how to handle missing data, but for a read-only tool with clear input parameters and return format, it is reasonably complete. The schema covers limit and _apiKey details, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches parameter meaning by explaining that corporate_number can be a name and that the Japanese form is more reliable, and by clarifying the _apiKey's purpose (using own quota vs shared). These extras go beyond the schema descriptions, so a 4 is warranted.

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 returns Japanese government contracts awarded to a specific company via its 13-digit corporate number, sourced from gBizINFO. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gbiz_company_subsidies and gbiz_company_profile by focusing on procurement awards, and even draws an analogy to USAspending, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 specifies that the tool is used by corporate number and notes that names can be used but Japanese forms resolve better. It implies usage for retrieving contract award histories but does not explicitly mention when to use this versus siblings (e.g., subsidies). Clear context without explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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