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

Adds context the annotations do not: no saving, no intermediate file generation, and PDFs are returned as unconfirmed rather than resolved. Those are concrete behavioral traits (side-effect avoidance, uncertainty handling) that go beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint. It does not describe limits on how many forms can be prepared at once.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence and follows with constraints in short, non-repetitive statements. The trailing note about reusing answered information borders on repeating the intermediate-version rule but still carries distinct meaning.

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, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a tool with two entirely undocumented parameters and a fairly nuanced no-write contract, the description leaves the argument contract underspecified.

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 0%, so the description must explain case_id and form_ids, but it only alludes to the form selection ('選択した様式') and says nothing about case_id. An agent cannot tell from either source what form_ids accepts (IDs vs names) or how null behaves.

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 concrete verb and object: it matches candidate inputs for the selected form against profile/saved values and compiles questions plus transcription candidates. That differentiates it from fill_form/fill_forms, which actually write data. It stops short of naming the sibling it contrasts with, so an agent must infer the boundary from '保存・中間ファイル生成はしない'.

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?

Gives explicit conditions: reuse already-answered information, and only produce a full pre-answer set when the user asks for an intermediate version. That is real when-to-use guidance beyond a bare purpose statement. It does not name alternatives such as fill_form for the actual writing step, leaving part of the routing implicit.

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