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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: the corpus is limited to already-loaded pages and excludes post-load updates, the response includes excerpts plus URLs, and it spells out failure behavior instead of letting the agent guess.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the later sentences carry genuinely useful fallback instructions rather than filler. It is on the long side for a one-parameter tool, but each sentence contributes operational value (scope limits, rephrasing, refusal-to-guess).

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 values need not be re-explained, and the description correctly focuses on scope, usage priority, and failure handling. The one meaningful gap is the absence of any routing cue relative to the overlapping 'search_pages' sibling.

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% with a single documented 'query' parameter and an inline example (料金 支払い方法), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description hints at phrasing strategy but adds no syntax, format, or matching semantics beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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: it searches within pages loaded from 'XR Memorandum' (orecen.com) and returns matching passages with excerpts and URLs. This is far more than a restatement of the name. However, it never differentiates itself from the near-identical sibling 'search_pages', so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the text alone.

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 when-to-use guidance ('use this first when asked about XR Memorandum') and when-not coverage via scope limits (not the whole internet, not post-load updates). It also prescribes a fallback strategy (rephrase, read candidate pages, don't guess). It stops short of naming alternatives like search_pages or fetch.

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