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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: only pre-loaded pages are searchable, the whole internet is out of scope, and updates made after loading are not reflected (consistent with openWorldHint=false). It also discloses the retry/fallback policy and instructs the agent not to guess, which is useful operational detail.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the very long site name is repeated verbatim twice and the fallback/rephrasing instructions run long. Several sentences carry guidance that could be tightened without losing meaning.

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-format detail is unnecessary. The description covers scope limits, retry strategy, and failure behavior, leaving only sibling differentiation 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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a concrete example (料金 支払い方法). The description adds no query syntax or matching semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

States a specific verb (探す/search) and a clear resource scope: pages loaded from fugusugata.jp, returning excerpts and URLs. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling tool search_pages, which an agent could easily confuse with this generically-named '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?

Explicitly directs the agent to use this first when asked about 銀座の...ぎんざ姿, and prescribes escalation behavior (rephrase with abbreviations/synonyms, then read returned candidate pages, then admit failure). It never contrasts with the sibling search_pages or fetch/get_page, so the routing guidance is clear but not comparative.

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