list_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'get list' and reveals nothing about pagination, scoping, permissions, or side effects. The verb '取得' (get) implies a read operation, but no additional behavioral context is provided.

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 a single, front-loaded Japanese phrase with no filler or redundant clauses. It is concise without being a tautology, though it is so sparse that it sacrifices informational completeness.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin: it neither explains what kind of items are returned, nor how the required company_id scopes the list, nor what the response looks like. The single phrase is adequate for a rough idea but leaves important context unspecified.

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%: the only parameter, company_id, is described as '事業所ID' (office ID) in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, so it earns the baseline score with the schema doing the heavy lifting.

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 Japanese description '品目一覧を取得' ('retrieve item list') states a specific verb and resource, so an agent understands it fetches a list of items. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like list_account_items or list_deals, leaving the exact type of 'items' ambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it simply names the operation. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or sibling references such as list_account_items, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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