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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention query omission behavior, but it does not address pagination/limit interplay or return format. The phrase 'list every service' is potentially misleading given the limit default of 10, though the schema itself carries a similar inconsistency.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then provides targeted usage guidance and a key query-omission behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a simple, low-parameter search tool with a fully documented schema, so the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, typical use cases, and query omission. Lack of output schema is acceptable for a list-returning search tool, though a brief mention of return type would strengthen it.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds use-case context but does not materially enrich the meaning of 'query' or 'limit' beyond what the schema already documents. The category list in the description helps with query formulation but is not parameter-specific.

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 ('Search') and a clear resource ('services offered by 株式会社一創') with concrete categories. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_articles and search_case_studies by focusing on services.

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 gives explicit context: 'Use this when the user is looking for a development vendor, a quote, or a partner for a specific technology.' It does not explicitly contrast with sibling search tools, but the service scope is clear enough for differentiation.

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