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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that results come with excerpts (抜粋つき), which is modest extra value. It says nothing about result limits, ranking, pagination, or empty-result behavior, so it does not go beyond the annotation baseline by much.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is searched and immediately followed by the usage trigger. No filler or repetition, though the enumeration of searchable fields makes the first sentence somewhat long.

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 the description need not explain return values, and with one well-documented parameter the tool is simple. The description covers scope, searchable content, and when to prefer it, leaving only sibling disambiguation (search_pages) as a 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 coverage is 100% and the single query parameter is already documented with an example, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by listing the semantic targets a query can hit (作品名、大きさ、価格、在庫、購入方法、特商法表記), helping the agent formulate effective queries rather than just pass a string.

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 gives a concrete verb (探す/抜粋) and a specific resource (「慈」陶器サイトのページ), and enumerates the kinds of content that can be found (作品名、大きさ、価格、売り切れ、購入方法、特商法表記). This is far more than a restatement of the name 'search'. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool search_pages, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 explicit priority guidance: 「作品や購入について質問されたら、まずこれを使ってください」, which tells the agent when this tool is the right first move. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. search_pages or get_page), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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