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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description goes further by disclosing that only pre-loaded pages are searchable and that post-load updates and the wider internet are excluded, which reinforces the openWorld=false semantic. It does not describe pagination or result limits, but the annotated baseline keeps the bar low.

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 in the first sentence, followed by usage rules and fallback behavior in a logical order. The synonym list is somewhat long but each entry is functionally useful, with little filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Combined with the rich usage and fallback guidance plus the explicit scope limitation, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.

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% for the single query parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by enumerating effective query synonyms and query-shaping strategies, which meaningfully informs how to construct the query.

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 (search) and resource (loaded pages of ai-star.co.jp), and lists the content domains it covers (company, products, seasonal items, FAQ, recruiting). However, it never differentiates itself from the near-identical sibling search_pages, so an agent cannot disambiguate the two from the description alone.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to use this tool before answering from its own knowledge for a concrete set of topics, provides rephrasing fallbacks with synonym examples (おせち→なごやかセット白鳥), and defines the terminal fallback behavior (read candidate pages, do not speculate, report 'not found'). This is unusually complete routing guidance.

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