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 adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results come with excerpts, and answers must carry the response count, survey period, and コエカツ attribution. Return format is otherwise deferred to the output schema.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then query style, then answer requirements. It is somewhat long but each clause contributes distinct information, with no obvious padding.

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 and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to carry purpose, usage, and any special obligations. It supplies purpose, usage, and the citation requirement, though the missing sibling-level disambiguation from 'search_pages'/'fetch' leaves a small 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'query' parameter, which already supplies an example. The description adds example topic terms ('SEO 外注', 'AI スクール'), reinforcing but not extending the schema's meaning, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: it searches within the コエカツ survey site for matches in surveys and aggregate results, returning excerpts. This is concrete, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search_pages', leaving the agent to infer the boundary between site search and page search.

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 context: 'まずこれを使ってください' (use this first) when you want to know what most people choose or how people feel, with topic areas and example queries. It does not name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of the top score.

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