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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description adds value by enumerating the payload contents (address, phone, hours, supported languages, garbage guide), but it says nothing about behavior for invalid or non-23-ward input or whether missing fields can occur.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the scope constraint and returned-field list packed in without any redundant phrasing.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it identifies the resource, the domain, and the fields returned. The only meaningful gap is edge-case behavior (unknown ward name, partially available data), which is minor for 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented with English-name examples, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by constraining valid values to Tokyo's 23 wards, which tells the agent the domain boundary the schema does not state.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and a precisely scoped resource: ward office plus foreign residents' consultation desk info for one of Tokyo's 23 wards, with the returned data fields enumerated. This makes it unmistakably distinct from siblings like get_emergency_contacts, get_procedure, or search_glossary, though it never explicitly names a sibling to route against.

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: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs contact/hours/language details for a specific Tokyo ward. There is no statement of when not to use it, no prerequisite or fallback guidance, and no explicit routing to alternatives such as get_emergency_contacts for urgent matters.

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