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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), which lowers the bar. The description adds that it returns the FULL body text rather than a snippet and that it is the authoritative source for accuracy-critical facts, but it says nothing about failure on a bad id, truncation, or pagination.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with site + purpose and then id usage and the verification trigger; each sentence carries information. Slightly more compact than ideal but no 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?

For a low-complexity read-only tool with an output schema (so return shape need not be described) and full param coverage, the description covers purpose, required input, and the moment to use it. The unresolved overlap with the get_page sibling is the main remaining gap.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the id semantics (search-result id, URL or path, Japanese acceptable). The description restates the same 'URL or path' guidance without adding format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('returns the full body text of a loaded page') and even pins the target site (companydata.tsujigawa.com), so the agent knows exactly what it does. However it never differentiates itself from the near-duplicate sibling get_page, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives a concrete use condition: verify the body text with this before answering questions where accuracy matters (prices, dates, conditions, terms), and it links to the search flow ('pass the id from the search results'). It offers clear context but no explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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