hazard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses official government data (Kasaneru Hazard Map, J-SHIS) and returns citations. However, it does not mention any limitations (e.g., data freshness, coverage completeness, error handling) or behavioral traits like read-only nature. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core function and followed by supporting details (data sources, input types). No redundant or excessive wording; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description would benefit from explaining the response structure (e.g., risk levels per disaster type). It mentions '出典つき' but does not specify the format or fields. For a tool assessing multiple risk types, the omission of output details is a gap. Parameters are well-covered, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds context by clarifying that lat/lon are alternative inputs to address, and explains the 'lang' parameter's purpose ('English summary for foreign investors'). This goes beyond the schema alone, providing practical guidance.

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 assesses disaster risk (flood, earthquake, landslide, etc.) for Japanese addresses using official data and returns results with citations. The verb '判定して返します' and resource '住所の災害リスク' are specific and unambiguous.

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 indicates the tool is for Japanese addresses or coordinates, and mentions the 'lang' parameter for English output (foreign investors). While no exclusions or alternatives are given, the context is clear given no sibling tools exist. Slightly more explicit when-not-to-use would elevate, but sufficient.

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