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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is deterministic and not a final legal determination, which is useful. However, it does not clarify if the tool is read-only or has side effects, and lacks information on authorization or rate 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 relatively short but mixes Japanese and English, reducing clarity. It front-loads the purpose but lacks structured formatting. Every sentence adds some value, but the mixed language hinders conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format beyond ◯△✕, missing details on prerequisites, limitations, or how to interpret results. The disclaimer about legal finality is helpful but insufficient.

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 0%. The tool description only mentions passing 'tokkyo.json' without explaining the seven parameters. The meaning of fields like facts, category, priorArt, etc., is left to the schema's minimal description, which is insufficient.

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 specifies the tool checks novelty loss, description requirements, patent eligibility, and inventive step, outputting deterministic ◯△✕ judgments. It distinguishes itself as the patent version of houki_check, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools tokkyo_analyze and tokkyo_draft.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description mentions it's the patent version of houki_check but does not provide context for when tokkyo_check is preferred over tokkyo_analyze or tokkyo_draft.

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