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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful context (source is METI/gBizINFO and the workplace fields come from a statutory disclosure), but it does not disclose operational traits such as pagination, return shape, or quota behavior.

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?

Two sentences carry all the essential information: what is returned, from where, for whom, and how to select a record set. No filler, with the core content 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description, combined with the 100%-covered schema and examples, tells an agent enough to make a correct call: supported kinds, corporate-number input, and the special nature of the workplace record. A slight gap is that the exact output arrangement for the other record types is left to inference, but the examples mitigate that.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds value by expanding what `kind` can be (patent, certification, commendation, finance, workplace) and by explaining the workplace record's data content. That extra context helps an agent choose a value beyond the schema's terse enum description.

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 opening phrase enumerates exactly what the tool returns (patents/trademarks, certifications, commendations, financial results, workplace statistics) for a single Japanese company keyed by corporate number, from gBizINFO/METI. This content set is distinct from sibling tools like gbiz_company_profile, gbiz_company_search, gbiz_company_procurement, and gbiz_company_subsidies, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 selection context: use it for record sets of one known company, keyed by its 13-digit corporate number, and choose the desired set with `kind`. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it misses the top bar for when/when-not guidance.

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