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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description's 'returns ... in Markdown' is consistent with that. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying the Markdown output format and the exact topics covered, which is not present in annotations or the schema.

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?

One compact sentence leads with the key action and resource ('avacast の組み込み方') and then itemizes the guide contents. Every element earns its place with no redundancy.

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 parameterless documentation tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies what is returned, the format, and the covered topics. The read-only/idempotent annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully complete and the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it returns (返します) the avacast integration guide. It enumerates the guide's contents (session creation, browser SDK, REST API, error codes), which clearly distinguishes this documentation tool from operational sibling tools like create_session and get_usage.

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 intended use is implied: an agent should call this when the user wants integration instructions or the error-code reference. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over the sibling API tools, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions.

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