check_invoice_registration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns markdown, supports up to 10 comma-separated numbers, and includes a history flag. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, or error behaviors. Adequate but not rich.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by an Args/Returns section. It is concise, with no fluff, and front-loads the primary purpose. The docstring-like format aids readability.

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 description covers all essential elements for a check tool: purpose, parameters, and return format (markdown). Since an output schema exists, detailed return structure is not required. Minor gaps like error handling or prerequisites are not critical for this simple read operation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: it explains the 'number' parameter format (T+13 digits, example provided, comma-separated up to 10), and the 'history' parameter (whether to include change history, default False). This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema and fully covers both parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('確認する' - check), resource ('適格請求書発行事業者の登録情報' - registration info of qualified invoice issuers), and method ('登録番号で' - by registration number). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like search_invoice_by_name and validate_invoice_on_date by specifying the identifier type. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 implies usage: if you have a registration number, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling routing is provided. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance, so it falls short of a higher score.

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