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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It communicates that the operation is a read-only search over published materials, which is useful. However, it does not mention ordering behavior, pagination, result format, permissions, or any constraints beyond the schema-provided limit semantics.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states exactly what is searched and by whom, and the second sentence gives a concrete usage example, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple read-only search tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: content domain, entity, and typical user intent. It does not describe the shape of returned items, but that is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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%: both `query` and `limit` are already described in the input schema, including default and range for `limit`. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Search the published project portfolio (制作実績) and customer references (導入企業の声)' of the named company. It also clarifies the intended question type ('do they have experience with X?') and distinguishes the tool from siblings like search_services and search_articles by content domain.

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 description explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use this to answer "do they have experience with X?" style questions.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clear enough for an agent to make a reasonable selection among sibling search tools.

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