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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context: it returns GeoJSON with polygon coordinates and properties, and mandates that results must be visualized on a map rather than presented as raw text. This goes beyond the annotation and is operationally valuable.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear opening sentence followed by bullet-pointed key constraints and an important usage directive. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool returns, the precondition (completed status), and the required post-processing (map visualization). No critical information is missing.

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 input schema fully documents job_id (including the requirement that status must be completed), and the description reiterates this condition without adding new semantic detail. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: retrieving completed detection job results in GeoJSON format ('完了した検出ジョブの結果を GeoJSON 形式で取得します'). It clearly identifies the resource and action, distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_job_status (status checking) and list_jobs (listing jobs).

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 clear context: only jobs with status 'completed' will return results, so an agent knows this tool should be used after job completion. It lacks an explicit alternative for non-completed jobs, but the condition itself sets a clear boundary.

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