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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the corpus is limited to already-crawled pages, post-crawl site updates are excluded, results come back as excerpts with URLs, and misses return candidate pages. It doesn't mention result limits or ranking 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?

Front-loaded with what it searches and where the corpus comes from, then the usage trigger, then the retry/fallback ladder. Slightly long for a one-parameter tool, but every sentence contributes a distinct instruction.

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 single-parameter read-only search with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: corpus scope, invocation trigger, query-reformulation guidance, and correct failure behavior.

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 already gives an example query, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining how to shape the query string — expand abbreviations to formal names, substitute synonymous terms — which is actionable semantics the schema does not carry.

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 resource (pages loaded from smart-shouene-ai.com), and bounds the scope explicitly ('探せるのは読み込んだページだけ'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tool `search_pages`, leaving an agent to guess which search to call.

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 trigger ('Smart省エネ AI【公式】 について質問されたら、まずこれを使ってください') plus a concrete retry strategy (rephrase with full names or synonyms) and a fallback path (read candidate pages, then report not-found rather than guess). No explicit when-not or comparison against `search_pages`/`fetch`.

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