Four tools with complete schemas and Japanese descriptions. Naming follows verb_noun pattern (search_, get_, list_, stats). Schemas are well-formed with proper types and enums. However, descriptions are terse (10-20 chars in Japanese), parameter descriptions lack depth, and no output schemas are documented. Error handling is minimal. The server is read-only and domain-specific (JFTC enforcement data), which limits complexity but also limits guidance for LLM reasoning about when to use each tool.

• Add English descriptions (50-150 chars) to all tools explaining WHAT they do, WHEN to use them, and what they return. E.g., 'search_actions: Search JFTC enforcement actions by company name, case number, legal provision, or date range. Returns matching actions with total count. Use this to find relevant precedents; use get_action to fetch full details by ID.'
• Document output schemas for each tool. Add a 'outputSchema' field to TOOLS array with JSON Schema for {total, returned, actions} (search_actions), {id, title, company, ...} (get_action), etc. This enables LLMs to plan multi-step calls.
• Expand parameter descriptions with constraints and examples. E.g., 'limit: Maximum number of results (1 - 500, default 50). Larger limits may slow queries.' 'stream: Filter by legal regime: dk=Antimonopoly Act, shitauke=Subcontract Act. Omit to search both.'
• Improve error messages with recovery guidance. E.g., 'ID not found: "abc123". Try search_actions(query="company name") to find the correct ID, then call get_action(id=...).'
• Add a 'required' array to search_actions and list_recent inputSchema to clarify which parameters are optional. Currently all are optional, which is correct, but LLMs benefit from explicit documentation.