Search Cost Category

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context—returning red-flag counts and priority, and being Japan-specific—but does not go deeper into pagination, limits, or response edge cases. This matches a baseline where annotations handle the core disclosure.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and output. The bilingual format and examples are purposeful and not redundant. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with an output schema and adequate annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, input expectations, output content, and language context. No significant gaps remain, and the output schema handles return-value details.

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%, so the parameter is already documented. The description adds concrete examples (外壁塗装, 浴室, 給湯器) and clarifies that Japanese queries work best, enriching the schema's bare definition with practical usage hints.

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 action: 'Finds a construction-cost category by work name or keyword' and specifies the output ('matching categories with red-flag counts and priority'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_cost_categories by focusing on search rather than enumeration.

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 provides useful context for when to use the tool: searching by work name/keyword, with a Japan-specific note and bilingual examples. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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