get_court_directory

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does so by specifying the exact output fields: name, prefecture, parent court, inquiry phone, and BIT search URL. It also discloses a constraint: brand isolation, i.e., the tool is isolated and should not be mixed with subsidies. For a simple lookup tool, this is adequate transparency about what the agent can expect.

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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose in Japanese, the second in English, followed by return details and a brief isolation warning. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 one-param lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter type (via schema), output fields, and an important usage constraint. It does not explain error behavior or exhaustive edge cases, but that is not necessary for a straightforward directory lookup. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 already provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter, including examples of both accepted formats (slug and BIT ID). The description's mention of 'by code' adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Per the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description does not need to compensate.

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's function: looking up a Japanese district court by code and returning contact/jurisdiction information. It enumerates specific return fields (name, prefecture, parent court, phone, BIT URL), and it is distinct from all sibling tools, which are subsidies, auctions, and practitioner lookups. The verb 'look up' plus the resource 'Japanese district court' gives a precise purpose.

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 does not explicitly enumerate alternative tools, but it gives a clear when-not-to-use signal with 'Brand-isolated; do not mix with the subsidies module.' Since no sibling tool performs court lookups, this warning effectively tells the agent that this tool is exclusively for court directory data and not to be confused with the subsidy-related tools. This is sufficient guidance for selection.

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