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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the whole page body is returned (not a summary or excerpt) and frames the tool as the verification step before citing figures.

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: what it returns, when to use it, and a verification directive. It is front-loaded and free of filler, though the middle sentence is dense with examples and could be tightened.

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 not be explained, and the read-only annotations cover the safety side. What remains missing is any differentiation from the similarly named sibling 'get_page', which is the one gap that could cause a wrong tool selection.

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% and there is a single required 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents accepted forms (page URL, path, or the id from search results). The description adds nothing about the parameter and simply calls out the baseline 3.

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: it returns the full body text of a 'コエカツ' page from start to finish, and it scopes the use case to reading survey detail. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_page', which by name appears to retrieve the same resource, so an agent cannot fully 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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance: use it to read in detail the question text, per-choice percentages and response counts that 'search' surfaced, and explicitly says to confirm with this tool before quoting numbers. It does not state when NOT to use it or why one would pick it over the sibling 'get_page', so the routing is not complete.

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