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 and scope profile is largely covered. The description adds that the read is scoped to a single domain and returns the full body text, but says nothing about request cost, limits, failure modes, or whether the site must be pre-loaded/crawled.

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, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the parameter note and the usage trigger. Every sentence carries information, though the parameter sentence largely duplicates the schema and could be trimmed.

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-value detail is not the description's burden. Purpose, accepted parameter forms, domain scope, and the accuracy-critical use case are all covered; only limits on very long pages or preconditions are unaddressed.

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 id parameter, which already documents that a search-result id, URL, path, or Japanese-language form is acceptable. The description restates exactly the same accepted forms, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the full body text of a page on the Esprit Delasse site. The emphasis on 全文 (full text) implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like get_page or search, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation must be inferred from context.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use trigger: verify prices, dates, conditions, and terms against the page body before answering. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over get_page or search, so the agent must derive the division of labor itself.

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