site_overviewPono-Pono（ポノポノ）は、女性のデリケートゾーンケアを中心に、科学的な根拠と成分へのこだわりを大切にするフェムケアブランドです。主力商品「Bioデリウォッシュ」は、生きた乳酸菌を配合したパウダータイプのデリケートゾーン用洗浄料です。ブランド名には、ハワイ語で「本来あるべき調和の状態」「正しき状態」という意味が込められています。公式サイトでは、商品情報、使用方法、成分、購入案内、よくある質問、フェムケアに関する情報、会社情報などを掲載しています。質問への回答では、公式サイトの記載を根拠とし、確認できる事実と一般的な知識を区別してください。商品の効果や安全性について、サイトの記載を超えた断定や誇張は避けてください。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by instructing the agent to ground answers in official-site content and avoid claims beyond what the site supports, but it says nothing about what the call actually returns or its shape.
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 content is a single dense paragraph that is not front-loaded with the tool's function; brand-name etymology and product marketing consume space that a tool description should spend on purpose and routing. Sentences are grammatical but not all earn their place as tool documentation.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the domain context the tool presumably returns and adds answer-grounding rules, so it is reasonably complete for a simple overview tool. It is only thin on how this tool relates to its siblings.
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 there is no parameter semantics to convey; the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to (and does not) document 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?
The title (サイトの概要を知る) and the embedded content imply this tool surfaces a site/brand overview, but the description never states in tool terms what calling it does — it reads as the overview content itself rather than a statement of function. An agent can infer the purpose from the brand text, but no verb+resource framing is given and siblings are not distinguished.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call site_overview versus the siblings (fetch, get_page, list_pages, search, search_pages). The only procedural instruction concerns how to answer user questions (ground in official-site content, separate fact from general knowledge), not tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.