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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a notable behavioral trait the schema cannot: the tool is paid ($0.02 per call via x402/USDC), which affects whether an agent should invoke it. It does not disclose response shape, empty-result behavior, or pagination, leaving gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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 short sentences with zero waste: scope first, pricing second. Every element earns its place and nothing is buried.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope and cost but not what a result looks like or how an agent should handle an empty 24-hour window. Adequate but not 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and the description correctly signals that no parameters are needed.

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 verb (updates), resource (Japanese authority publications from FSA, BOJ, MOF), and scope (last 24 hours). The three named authorities and the 24-hour window distinguish it from siblings like jp_authorities_since and jp_authorities_search.

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 'last 24 hours' scope implies when to use it (freshness checks), and siblings like jp_authorities_since suggest time-ranged alternatives. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer jp_authorities_since over this tool or what to do when no updates exist.

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