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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that excerpts are page-numbered and that the query is an OR search, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about result volume, limits, or the effect of max_hits/context_chars.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by query syntax. No filler, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness given the undocumented parameters.

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 not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, the missing parameter semantics (especially subsidy_id scoping and the two integer knobs) and the absence of sibling differentiation leave gaps for a 4-parameter search tool.

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 carry the load. It explains the most important parameter well (query is space-separated OR search, with two examples), but leaves subsidy_id, max_hits, and context_chars entirely undocumented, including their non-obvious defaults.

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 names a specific verb+resource (公募要領の本文を検索) and states what is returned (ページ番号付きの抜粋), so an agent understands the operation. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_guideline_pages, which is its nearest competitor.

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?

It gives one concrete use case – verifying the basis of concerns items (concerns の項目の根拠確認に使う). That is genuine guidance, but there are no exclusions or explicit alternatives (e.g. get_guideline_pages) to route the agent when this tool is the wrong choice.

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