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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Raw' and 'full ... JSON' hint that output is unfiltered and potentially large, but there is no mention of the subscription/auth requirement (only implied by 'PRO.'), response size, error behavior, or whether office codes and prefecture names behave differently.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the tier marker and the return payload, with zero filler. It is efficient but arguably too terse to earn its place as the sole guidance.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and an undefined acronym (JMA) leave the agent without a picture of what comes back or what 'raw' entails. For a PRO-gated data tool with a 2-param schema and zero structured documentation, the description should do considerably more.

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, prefecture is a bare string. The description partially compensates by noting that 'prefecture' can also be an office code, which is real added meaning beyond the schema, but it gives no format examples or how disambiguation works.

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 returned (full JMA warning JSON) and the scoping key (one prefecture / office code), which is more specific than the name alone. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'warnings_for', so an agent cannot tell why it would pick 'raw' over the sibling without guessing that 'raw' means unfiltered/verbatim.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The only routing signal is the 'PRO.' prefix, which implies a paid tier but does not explain when to prefer this over 'warnings_for' or 'watchlist'.

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