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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that results include excerpts and that paraphrase/synonym matching is supported, which are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the input schema. It does not detail limits or edge cases, but for a search/read tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purposeholistic but then includes background about Zippa's free service and measurement tag, which is not necessary for invoking the tool. The list of searchable content types is useful, but the overall text is longer than needed and dilutes the operational guidance.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema the description should give more detail about the return shape and result limits. It explains what is searched and that excerpts are included, but does not clarify how many results are returned or how the limit parameter affects behavior. Sibling differentiation is partial, relying mostly on the reader to infer differences from 'search'.

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 query parameter is already described in the schema, and the description adds the paraphrase behavior that affects query interpretation. The limit parameter has no schema description and is not mentioned in the description, so the semantics are left to the schema's min/default/max fields rather than enriched by the description. With 50% schema coverage, this is an adequate but incomplete contribution.

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 clearly states the tool searches within Zippa pages for matching words and returns excerpts. It enumerates the content areas that can be searched, making the resource scope concreteholistic and distinguishing it from generic search or list tools. The phrase 'まずこれを使ってください' further reinforces its role relative to sibling tools.

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?

The description explicitly says to use this tool first when asked about Zippa or site speed improvement, providing clear invocation context. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full when-to-use / when-not-to-use guide.

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