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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results include excerpts (抜粋つき) and defines the searchable scope. However, it doesn't describe result count or shape, behavior on no matches, or how many pages are searched, leaving notable gaps for a search tool.

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 compact sentences. The first front-loads the core function (site, verb, excerpt behavior), and the second adds concrete scope examples plus a use-first directive. Every sentence earns its place with 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 search tool with 2 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the search scope, result form (excerpts), and invocation context. Gaps like exact return format and no-match behavior are moderate, and the limit parameter's effect on results is left implicit, but the description is nearly sufficient on its own.

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 50%: query has a description with concrete examples ('料金 支払い方法'), while limit has only type/default/min/max. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but limit's semantics are reasonably inferable from its name and numeric default, so the schema gap is a minor issue rather than a critical one.

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: searching pages of the 'Ji' pottery site for passages matching words, with excerpts. It enumerates concrete findable content (work names, sizes, prices, sold-out status, purchase methods, sales conditions), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools get_page, list_pages, and site_overview.

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?

The final sentence gives an explicit trigger condition: 'If asked about works or purchases, use this first.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. It doesn't name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the routing instruction is clear and actionable.

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