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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context: returns at most 10 candidates with page URLs, and it operates on a 'published ledger.' No contradiction with annotations, and the added details are valuable for an agent.

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 sentences with zero waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded, the result limit and URL output are stated, and the alternative tool is mentioned succinctly. 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?

For a simple search tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what to search, what to expect (max 10 candidates with URLs), and points to the sibling for deeper facts. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameter documentation, including examples ('kintone', 'マネーフォワード', '会計'). The description repeats the search dimensions (name/vendor/category) which aligns with the schema but does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Search the published RenkeiMap ledger'), the resource (Japanese business systems), and the search dimensions (name/vendor/category). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling renkeimap_system_facts by noting that tool is for facts of one system, so the agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool (renkeimap_system_facts) and the condition that selects it ('for the facts of one system'). It also specifies the search criteria (name/vendor/category) and the result limit (at most 10 candidates), giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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