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 the scope of what is indexed and that results come with excerpts, but says nothing about result volume, ranking, or limitations relative to search_pages. Useful but not rich behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 the core purpose, followed by coverage domains, routing advice, and query style — roughly one idea per sentence. It is somewhat long and the list of content domains could be trimmed, but no sentence is pure 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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers scope, when to use, and query style. The one real gap is sibling disambiguation against search_pages and fetch/get_page, which the description leaves open.

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% and the schema already documents the single query parameter with an example. The description still adds value by advising short keyword phrases and supplying domain-specific query examples, going slightly beyond the schema's generic example. Baseline for full coverage is 3; the extra query-phrasing guidance lifts it to 4.

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: searching the company's official site and returning matching passages with excerpts. It also enumerates the searchable content domains (services, case studies, notices, SEO Note!! articles, monthly reports). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool search_pages, leaving an obvious ambiguity unresolved.

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 clear when-to-use guidance ('when asked about the company/services, use this first') and prescribes query style with examples ('特許', '2026年8月 レポート'). It lacks any when-not-to-use or named alternatives, so the agent must guess whether search or search_pages is appropriate in edge cases.

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