search_invoice_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the internal pipeline (Corporate Number API search, invoice registration check, automatic conversion), a hard limitation (sole proprietors are not supported), and the markdown return format. It does not mention auth needs or rate limits, but those are less critical for a read-oriented search tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by brief behavioral context, an exclusion/alternative note, and parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value and there is no 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?

For a search tool with an output schema, the description covers the operation, all parameter semantics, a key exclusion, and the correct alternative for unsupported users. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by defining all three parameters: name as a partial-match company keyword, area as a prefecture-level filter with an example, and limit with explicit default and maximum values.

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 opening sentence states the specific function: 'Search invoice registration number by company name.' It also clarifies the internal mechanism (corporate number lookup and conversion to T + corporate number) and explicitly contrasts with check_invoice_registration, distinguishing it from siblings.

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 when the tool cannot be used (sole proprietors) and directs users to the sibling check_invoice_registration as the alternative. It also implies the right use case: name-based lookup when the registration number is unknown.

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