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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns the full body text and the corpus retains past-year pages, so results may include outdated or discontinued content. It does not describe pagination or truncation behavior for long pages.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the follow-on sentences are all relevant to correct invocation. It is somewhat long and several sentences read as answer-behavior policy rather than tool semantics, which slightly dilutes focus but does not waste space.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the single parameter plus rich usage rules fully equip an agent to call it correctly. Nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single `id` parameter is already documented in the schema. The description restates it (search result id = page URL, or URL/path) with no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

State a specific verb+resource: it returns the full body text of an already-loaded page on ai-star.co.jp, and explicitly contrasts full text with search's excerpts. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_page, leaving ambiguity about which of the two to pick for a single page read.

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?

Explicit about when to use it (accuracy-critical facts: prices, shipping, application periods, ingredients, allergens, company info) and when not to rely on excerpts from search. It also adds domain rules for handling past-year pages, sold-out/discontinued markers, and cosmetic/beverage claims, which is far beyond typical guidance.

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