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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: pagination mechanics (50 per page, limit 200, offset continuation) and the caveat that multiple year-variants of the same product may appear, with guidance to pick the latest. It does not state ordering/sort behavior, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then pagination, then usage context. Dense but every clause carries information (paths, pagination, year-selection caveat); the long enumeration of section paths makes it heavier than strictly necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description names the returned fields (title and URL), covers pagination, and warns about duplicate year variants. Combined with the annotations, an agent has enough to call this correctly, with only sort order unspecified.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it explains the 50-item default page size, the 200 maximum for limit, and that offset retrieves the continuation. That compensates well for undocumented schema properties, though it does not explicitly tie names to each parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('ai-star.co.jpの読み込み済みページの一覧を、タイトルとURLで返します') and names exactly what is returned. It also separates itself from the search siblings by framing itself as the fallback when searching fails.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('searchで見つからないとき') plus a positive use case (surveying what pages exist), and enumerates concrete section paths to look under. The alternative tool (search) is named rather than left to inference.

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