Japan Tsunami Alerts MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a useful filter behavior: cancelled/cleared bulletins are excluded when labelled. It does not explain auth requirements, rate limits, return shape, or the meaning of 'PRO', so transparency is partial.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no wasted text. The leading 'PRO.' is cryptic, but the sentence is appropriately sized and front-loads the filtering behavior.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers the core filter logic and output type. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around subscription/auth implications and how this tool relates to its siblings.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents access_token as a subscriber token. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that baseline.

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 says it returns bulletins that are current warnings/advisories and filters cancelled/cleared ones, which gives a usable resource and scope. However, the verb is implicit ('Bulletins that look like...'), 'look like' is hedged, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings latest_tsunami or tsunami_search.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus latest_tsunami or tsunami_search. The filtering behavior implies it is for active warnings, but alternatives and when-not-to-use conditions are absent.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does add two useful facts: the data is free and only the newest 5 records are returned. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, empty-result behavior, and response structure, which leaves meaningful gaps for a zero-parameter read tool.

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?

Two terse, front-loaded fragments with no filler, and the 'FREE' cost note and record cap are placed prominently. The telegraphic style is efficient if slightly informal for a tool description.

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, zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what it returns (tsunami forecasts/warnings) and the volume (newest 5). Only finer details such as region coverage or output shape are missing, which is minor at this complexity.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify, and it does not misleadingly imply any inputs.

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?

States a concrete resource (JMA tsunami forecasts/warnings) and a specific scope (latest, newest 5), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings tsunami_search or active_only, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus tsunami_search (query-based) or active_only (filtered set), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer that 'latest' means the default recent-forecast tool.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one useful behavioral fact (results are capped at the 50 most recent, so older bulletins are unreachable), but says nothing about auth requirements, result ordering, or whether keyword matching is case-sensitive/partial, and never confirms the operation is read-only beyond the word 'search'.

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?

A single compact sentence with the useful constraint (50 recent) front-loaded. The leading 'PRO.' is unexplained noise that costs clarity without earning 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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials of what it returns (a capped list of bulletins) but omits return shape, ordering, and whether an empty keyword means 'all recent'. Adequate, not complete.

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 50%: access_token is documented in the schema, while keyword is only typed as a bare string. The description compensates by explaining that keyword filters on title/office, which tells the agent what the match targets — meaningful value 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?

States the resource (tsunami bulletins), the recency/scope limit (up to 50 recent) and the keyword filter, which is enough to distinguish it loosely from latest_tsunami and active_only. It stops short of explicitly naming how it differs from those siblings, leaving the agent to infer the contrast.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'recent' and the optional keyword filter suggest a browsing/search tool, but there is no statement of when to choose it over latest_tsunami or active_only, and no prerequisites are mentioned. The leading 'PRO.' token gives no actionable guidance.

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