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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that 'DB + cache applied immediately' and that it operates on 'any houses' via admin token. However, it does not detail whether the operation is destructive (overwrites existing data) or merges, nor does it describe error handling, rate limits, or partial update behavior. 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 concise with no fluff. It front-loads key information (admin only, bulk, immediate effect) and then details the entries format and use case. The bilingual presentation (English and Japanese) is necessary. Every sentence earns its place.

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 should ideally mention what the tool returns (e.g., success count, error details). It omits return value info but covers purpose, usage, and effects well. For a mutation tool, the immediate effect disclosure is good. Minor gap for completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing the optional fields in entries (zoning, road_width_m, etc.) and clarifying that slug is required per entry. It also explains the relationship between slug and entries parameters (single vs bulk). This context enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Bulk-set site conditions for any houses (admin only, admin_token; no edit_token)'. It specifies the resource (site conditions) and action (bulk-set), and distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing admin-only and bulk operation. The use case for backfilling data from reinfolib adds context.

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 explicitly notes 'admin only, admin_token; no edit_token', indicating authentication requirements and that edit_token is not needed. It gives a concrete use case: 'For operators to backfill zoning/road-width across all properties'. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like set_site_context for single house updates, though the context is implied by the sibling list.

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