find_practitioner

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 the output (association registry URLs and a LocalGov.jp referral landing URL) and includes a BETA note about vetted profiles, which adds context about maturity. It does not describe any side effects, but as a recommendation tool, the behavior is sufficiently 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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action (Recommend 3 practitioners), followed by output details and a BETA caveat. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully states exactly what is returned (registry URLs and landing URL). It covers the tool's core purpose and output for a simple 2-parameter tool. It lacks explicit guidance on how or when to use it relative to sibling tools, but the BETA note adds useful context.

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 coverage is only 50% (grant_id lacks a description, industry_hint has one). The description does not explain grant_id format or provide examples, and it omits industry_hint entirely. It mentions 'grant's category and amount tier' which hints at grant_id's role but does not add substantive parameter-level meaning.

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 uses the specific verb 'Recommend' and identifies the target resource: 3 Japanese licensed practitioners (行政書士, 税理士, 中小企業診断士, 社会保険労務士). It also states the matching criteria (grant's category and amount tier), which distinguishes it from sibling tool find_practitioner_for_auction that targets auctions.

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 this tool is for grants via 'matched to the grant's category and amount tier', but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like find_practitioner_for_auction. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving usage context somewhat implicit.

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