Server has 29 tools with bilingual (JA/EN) descriptions and structured schemas. However, critical gaps undermine quality: (1) Tool names lack clear action verbs, 'consult', 'reference', 'inspect_consistency', 'review_architecture' are vague about what state changes occur. (2) Descriptions are bilingual but often terse (e.g., 'consult' is 150 chars, 'reference' is 100 chars), below the 194-char baseline for production tools. (3) Input schemas present but parameter descriptions are minimal; many lack context on valid ranges, formats, or dependencies. (4) Output schemas are NOT documented, LLMs cannot predict what fields to expect, breaking tool chaining. (5) Error handling is absent from visible code; no recovery guidance or categorization. (6) Tools like 'call_llm' expose arbitrary LLM invocation without guardrails. (7) Destructive tool 'delete_intake' lacks confirmation pattern. Overall: functional but below production baseline.

• Document output schemas for all 29 tools. Include field names, types, and whether results are paginated. Example: 'Returns {engagements: [{id, name, client, status, phase}], total: number}'.
• Rename vague tools: 'consult' → 'consult_on_situation', 'reference' → 'reference_knowledge_by_category', 'inspect_consistency' → 'inspect_data_consistency', 'review_architecture' → 'review_architecture_against_patterns'.
• Add parameter descriptions with format/constraint guidance. E.g., 'situation (string, 50-2000 chars): Free-form description of the EA challenge. Include current state, goals, and constraints.'
• Implement error handling with recovery hints. E.g., if search_togaf returns no results, suggest 'Try broader keywords or use reference() to browse categories first.'
• Add confirmation pattern to delete_intake: require a 'confirm: true' parameter or implement a separate 'confirm_delete_intake' tool that must be called before deletion.