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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description stays consistent by calling it a '読み取り検査' and noting review entries are not persisted (保存しない) and that this is distinct from clear's original restoration. It further discloses that completion/remaining_actions are reported and that certain semantic checks are NOT performed — useful context beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss performance or error behavior.

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?

Content is dense but front-loaded: the read-only nature and the expected-comparison mechanism come first, followed by status caveats, review semantics, scope limits, and sibling routing. Every line carries information, with only mild redundancy between the status sentence and the non-validated-fields sentence.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, yet the description still notes that completion and remaining_actions are reported. Combined with the explicit scope limits and sibling routing, an agent has essentially everything needed to call this correctly; only the case_id parameter and error behavior are unaddressed.

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?

Although top-level schema coverage reads 0%, the description explains the two substantive parameters: 'expected' compares written values/headings against stored data (with the constraint that table amounts must be passed), and 'review' covers awaiting_answer/personal_confirmation/intentional_blank/not_applicable declarations with a mandatory reason. This meaningfully supplements the nested $defs descriptions; case_id is left implicit but is self-evident.

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 opens with '読み取り検査' (a read-only check) and then states the concrete mechanism: comparing 'expected' values and row/column headings against stored values. It names the sibling tools it is not (inspect_form, validate_and_export_application), so an agent can distinguish it, though the resource ('application form submission') is implied rather than stated outright.

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?

Routes the agent explicitly: flagged fields go to inspect_form(targets=[欄ID]), and combined validation+export goes to validate_and_export_application. It also states scope exclusions (必須欄・補助額計算・様式間の意味的整合性は未検証) and warns that status is not submission readiness, so both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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