買取大陸

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns the full page body and is useful for accuracy checks, but does not describe authentication, rate limits, or other operational behavior.

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-load the purpose, then input handling, then the key usage instruction. Every sentence contributes useful context without unnecessary length.

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 a simple one-param read tool with annotations, an output schema, and full parameter coverage, the description supplies enough context about purpose and when to use it. The main gap is that it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling read/search tools.

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% and the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description repeats that id can be a search-result id/URL or a URL/path, but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action (返します) and resource (ページの本文), including the target domain. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_page or search_pages, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 clear when-to-use instruction: verify the page body before answering for accuracy-critical items like fees, dates, conditions, and terms. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it is retained for backward compatibility and returns a different shape than fetch, which is useful, but with no output schema it never describes that shape or any size/pagination behavior.

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 the legacy status and closing with the actionable 'use fetch instead' recommendation. No padding, though the middle sentence about the different return shape is a promise without a payoff.

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 simple legacy read tool this covers the essential routing, but with no output schema and a statement that the return form differs from fetch, an agent still cannot anticipate what it will receive. The core 'different shape' claim is left unexplained.

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 url parameter, and the description adds nothing about the parameter (e.g., accepted URL forms). Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the semantics.

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 the verb/resource (returns the page body) and explicitly frames itself as the legacy alias of fetch for the site 買取大陸. It distinguishes itself from the sibling fetch by noting the return shape differs, though it never says how it differs, leaving the actual output semantics vague.

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 an explicit routing instruction: use fetch for new usage, keep this only for already-connected clients. That is a clear when/when-not with a named alternative, but it omits any condition under which get_page is still the preferred call.

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

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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond them: page size of 50, a limit cap of 200, and offset-based continuation. It does not describe ordering or error behavior, so not a 5.

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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loading what is returned before the pagination mechanics and use cases. Nothing is wasted, though it is slightly dense in a single run-on.

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 simple two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers return contents (title, URL), pagination, and usage context. Ordering of results and total count are not addressed, a minor 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: limit is explained as page size with a 200 maximum, and offset as the continuation cursor. It omits the defaults (50/0) that the schema already declares, which is acceptable.

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 a list of pages with title and URL) and scopes it to the「買取大陸」site. It clearly separates this from search-flavored siblings by implying a find-everything listing, though it does not name a specific sibling tool.

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 two concrete when-to-use conditions: wanting to know what pages exist, and having failed to find something by searching. The second condition implicitly routes the agent away from search tools, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavior: the corpus is only pages already loaded, it will not see post-load updates, and on failure the agent must rephrase and then decline rather than guess — none of which is in the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with what it does, then scope limits, then failure handling. Every sentence carries a distinct instruction. Slightly longer than strictly necessary, but there is little 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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described; the description nevertheless says results come with excerpts and URLs. Combined with scope limits and a no-answer fallback policy, an agent has enough to call and interpret this correctly. The one gap is the absence of any routing note versus search_pages.

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 query parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds only the notion that the query is free words and notes abbreviation/synonym reformulation as a strategy, which is marginal beyond the schema's own example.

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) and resource (「買取大陸」から読み込んだページ), plus what it returns (抜粋と URL). The scope is well bounded (loaded pages only, not the whole web). It fails to distinguish itself from the sibling search_pages, which is the most obvious source of confusion.

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 explicit triggering context ('買取大陸 について質問されたら、まずこれを使ってください') and explicit exclusions ('ネット全体や読み込んだあとの更新は含みません'), plus retry guidance and a no-guessing rule. It never names an alternative sibling when a lookup fails, but the when/when-not coverage is otherwise strong.

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

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 covered. The description adds useful deprecation context and notes the return format differs from 'search', though it does not specify how the format differs.

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 concise sentences front-load the legacy status and immediately route the agent to the appropriate alternative. No sentence is wasted.

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 deprecated read-only search with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description provides enough context to avoid misuse. It could mention the limit parameter or the nature of the return-format difference, but these are minor gaps.

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 only 50%; the 'query' parameter is documented in the schema, but 'limit' has no textual description in either schema or description. The description does not mention any parameters, so it fails to compensate for the incomplete schema documentation.

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 ('search inside the site') and explicitly distinguishes this legacy alias from the primary 'search' tool by noting the different return format. It also identifies the site (kakeruyone.com), so an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 routing guidance: this is kept only for existing connections, and new uses should call 'search' instead. The alternative is named and the condition for using the alternative is clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable return-value context (type, description, page count, main pages) in the absence of an output schema, though it omits operational details like auth or rate limits.

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 usage trigger. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 zero-param, read-only overview tool with no output schema, the description covers both the purpose and the main fields returned, which is largely sufficient. Minor gaps remain about the exact response shape, but nothing critical for invocation is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly adds nothing misleading about inputs.

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+resource: returns an overview of the '買取大陸' site. It enumerates what the overview contains (type, description, pages loaded, main pages), which distinguishes it from page-level siblings like get_page and list_pages.

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 says to use it when first wanting to grasp the whole site ('最初にサイトの全体像をつかみたいときに使います'), implying it precedes page-level tools. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives, but the context is clear.

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