houjin_verify

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that results are probabilistic ('most likely'), includes a confidence score, and that closed/dissolved companies are reported as not verified. This provides meaningful behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by one important edge-case note. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy.

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 tool with two simple parameters and good annotations, the description covers the return value (corporate number + confidence) and a key edge case (closed/dissolved). It does not mention behavior when no match is found, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, with both 'name' and 'address' already documented, including the fact that address improves matching. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline for fully schema-covered 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 clearly states the tool performs name-matching (名寄せ) of a company name and location against the Japanese corporate registry, returning a corporate number and confidence score. It also adds a distinctive caveat about closed/dissolved companies, helping differentiate it from sibling houjin 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 implies a clear use case: verifying a company's identity to obtain its corporate number. It does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like houjin_search or houjin_corporation, but the focused name-matching context is sufficient for basic guidance.

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