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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the data source (Kankoju portal) and input flexibility, but does not disclose ordering, result preview behavior, or how 'recently' is bounded.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by source attribution and a concise summary of optional parameters.

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 7-parameter tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description captures the core use case, source, and parameter dimensions. It could mention return format behavior explicitly, but the schema already covers full_text preview control.

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 the schema already documents every parameter thoroughly. The description adds some framing (browsing without keyword, optional keyword narrowing) but does not materially expand on the parameter details already present.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('Japanese government tender notices'), and clearly scopes the tool to prefectures. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing 'without needing a keyword' as the browsing-oriented approach.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: to browse what a given prefecture published recently, with optional filters. It does not explicitly name alternatives like japan_tenders_search or japan_tenders_by_organization, but the context and sibling list make the differentiation clear.

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