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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns the full body text from start to end, implying unfiltered output. However, it does not discuss potential limitations, size of output, or any request-specific behavior beyond what annotations already provide.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the primary behavior, and contains no filler. Every phrase earns its place by specifying scope, output, and the usage context.

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?

Given the low complexity (one required parameter), the presence of an output schema, and the read-only annotations, the description is complete enough. An agent can determine when to call it and what it returns, and the schema covers the parameter details.

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%, so the schema already explains the 'id' parameter well, including that a URL or path is acceptable. The description itself adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('返します') and a clear resource ('「慈」のページの本文'), and explains that it returns the full body from beginning to end. It ties the tool to the search flow ('search で見つけた作品...'), which distinguishes it from a generic listing tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_page'.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: after search, when the user wants to read the detailed description, size, price, and sales conditions of a found work. It provides clear context but does not mention exclusions or alternative sibling tools like 'get_page'.

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