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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the shape of what can be inspected (name, parent/child, related classifications) but no operational context such as rate limits, auth, or data freshness.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Slightly more could be trimmed, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description needn't explain return values or permissions. It is complete enough for a simple single-parameter lookup tool, with only usage routing left unstated.

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% and the single ndc_code parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the format examples (000, 007.1, 913.6) and the empty-string-returns-root behavior. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (取得します/確認できます) and resource (NDC分類情報), and enumerates the retrievable facets: 分類名称, 上位・下位分類, 関連分類. The scope is distinct from the sibling search_books/search_libraries tools, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied — look up classification info from a code — but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, no conditions for choosing it over search_books/search_libraries, and no exclusions. The 'code in, info out' framing is the only guidance offered.

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