get-magazine

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '取得する' (get) implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the '詳細情報' (detailed information) includes. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 extremely concise - a single Japanese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as it omits important contextual information that would help an agent use the tool effectively.

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 read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what '詳細情報' (detailed information) includes, whether authentication is required, or how this differs from similar retrieval tools. Given the complexity of having multiple magazine/note-related sibling tools and the lack of structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about what this specific tool returns and when to use it.

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 description doesn't mention parameters at all, but the input schema has 100% description coverage with a clear parameter description for 'magazineId'. Since schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but doesn't need to compensate for poor schema documentation.

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 'マガジンの詳細情報を取得する' (Get detailed information of a magazine) clearly states the verb ('取得する' - get) and resource ('マガジン' - magazine), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'search-magazines' or 'get-category-notes', leaving ambiguity about when this specific retrieval tool should be used versus alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'search-magazines' and 'get-category-notes' available, there's no indication whether this is for retrieving a specific magazine by ID while others handle searches or category-based retrieval. The description lacks any 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' context.

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