search_corporations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that it queries the NTA site and returns a list as a markdown table, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (though 'search' implies it), nor does it mention any potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or behavior when no results are found. It adds some value beyond the schema but not rich behavioral context.

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 heading and separate Args/Returns sections. It is concise, with each parameter explained in a single line. The main purpose is front-loaded. It is not overly verbose, but it could be slightly more compact; however, the structure earns a solid score.

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 four parameters, explains the return format (markdown table), and specifies the data source. It does not address edge cases like empty results, invalid kind codes, or pagination beyond the limit parameter, but given that an output schema exists and the tool is a search operation, it is reasonably complete. The main missing piece is error handling, but that's not critical for invocation.

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 input schema has zero descriptions for parameters, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter in detail: name (partial match), area (prefecture name, e.g., '東京都'), kind (specific codes with meanings: '01'=national agency, etc.), and limit (default 10, max 2000). This goes well beyond the schema's types and defaults, making it exceptionally helpful for correct invocation.

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 explicitly states the tool searches for corporations by corporate name using the National Tax Agency's corporate number publication site, and mentions filtering by region and type. It clearly identifies the verb ('search'), resource ('corporations'), and scope (by name, with optional filters). While it doesn't name sibling tools, the specificity of 'search by name' distinguishes it from get_corporation (likely fetching by ID) and search_invoice_by_name (different entity).

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 provides clear context: when you need to search for corporate information by name, with optional filters for area and kind. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools, but the usage scenario is evident from the purpose. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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