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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It indicates a read-only retrieval ('Return...') but doesn't disclose potential caveats like rate limits, failure modes, or whether the URLs are consistently canonical across scenarios. The absence of annotations lowers the score, though the action is simple and likely side-effect-free.

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 concise sentences: the first states what it does, the second states when to use it. No filler or redundant information. Effectively front-loaded and well-structured.

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 simplicity (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and usage. It doesn't describe the exact return format, but for a simple company info tool, that may be unnecessary. Could benefit from mentioning the structure of the returned data, but overall sufficient.

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?

Tool has 0 parameters, which meets the baseline of 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed, and there is nothing to explain about parameters. The schema coverage is 100% trivially since no properties exist.

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 clearly states the tool returns the company profile of 株式会社一創 and canonical URLs for services, portfolio, and contact form. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_article and search_services by focusing on company info and contact URLs rather than content retrieval.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when the user asks who they are or how to contact / request a quote.' This provides clear triggers and implies alternatives (search tools for content) without listing them.

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