get_jp_copy_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add one meaningful behavioral trait: outputs are original examples, not re-used wording from reference sites, which sets provenance expectations. However, it does not explicitly state read-only/side-effect-free behavior or describe how copies are generated or selected, leaving the safety profile to be inferred from the verb '返します.'

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?

Exactly two short sentences with zero filler: the first states the action and scope, the second adds the provenance caveat that prevents confusion with site-scraping tools. Information is efficiently front-loaded.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with a fully documented enum and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it states the categories and the origin of the examples. The only gap is that the return format (e.g., array of strings vs. structured objects) is not described, though it is largely inferable for a copy-example catalog.

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% (page_type is documented as 'ページ要素の種類' with a full enum), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description merely echoes the schema's enum values (hero, cta, form, error, nav, footer) without adding format, case, or value-usage details, adding no meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('返します' / returns) and a clear resource (日本語コピー例, Japanese copy examples), scoped to six enumerated page-element categories that exactly mirror the input enum. The clarifying clause 'オリジナル例であり、参照サイトの文言ではありません' actively distinguishes this tool from reference-site siblings (search_jp_sites, get_reference_jsx) by asserting the output is original, not site-sourced text.

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?

Usage context is implied but not stated: the enumerated page types tell an agent which requests fit, and the originality clause implies this tool is for original copy rather than verbatim site text. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative for legal blocks (get_jp_legal_blocks) or form specs (get_jp_form_spec).

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