get_jp_form_spec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the returned content (the enumerated fields), which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about response format, error behavior, or any side effects. As a read-only getter this is acceptable but thin; there is no contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the purpose first, followed by the field enumeration. There is no filler or redundancy, and every word contributes. It is appropriately compact for a simple retrieval tool, though slightly more structure (e.g., a separate note on output format) would not have hurt.

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 parameterless getter with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it tells the agent exactly what fields the spec contains. However, it omits the shape of the response (object keys, nesting, or format) and does not clarify what 'ご用件' maps to, leaving mild ambiguity about what an agent should expect as a return value.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the description correctly carries no parameter documentation burden. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on describing the return content rather than parameters. Nothing is missing here.

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-resource pair ('日本語フォーム仕様を返します' — returns the Japanese form spec) and enumerates the form fields (姓・名・フリガナ・email・tel・郵便番号・都道府県・住所・ご用件). This is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_jp_copy_patterns or get_jp_legal_blocks, which target different resources, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the nine siblings (get_jp_copy_patterns, get_design_system, recommend_jp, etc.). The field list implies a contact/input-form use case, but the description never states a trigger condition, an alternative, or a when-not-to-use case. With so many siblings, explicit routing would materially help.

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