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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the data is static, sourced from public vendor pages, entries carry sources, and no user data is involved. This goes beyond the annotation baseline and helps the agent understand reliability and privacy expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the tool's content scope, then adds sourcing, privacy, and citation notes. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or padding.

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 one-parameter static lookup, the description covers what results contain, their source, the lack of user data, and the need to cite. With no output schema, it could add a bit more about the response shape, but the stated content types and 'entries' references are sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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% for the single slug parameter, including an example ('kintone'), so the parameter semantics are already fully documented. The description does not add param-specific detail, but no further clarification is needed at this complexity level.

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 title ('エラー文の対処を返す') and description both specify that the tool returns the meaning/handling for vendor error messages for a single system, along with support URLs and login method shape. The 'one system' scope plus the concrete content list clearly distinguishes it from siblings like renkeimap_compare or renkeimap_status.

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 does not state when to prefer this tool over its siblings, nor does it name alternatives. It only implies usage through 'static public knowledge for one system' and adds 'no user data,' but there is no explicit routing or when-not-to-use guidance.

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