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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about behavior: not whether it is a read, what it returns, how scores are computed, or any rate/permission constraints.

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 short, but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. A single noun phrase cannot front-load useful information for an agent.

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 tool with two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent has no basis to call it correctly or interpret results.

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?

Two parameters (limit, min_score) exist at 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about either. Notably both are typed as strings, which is counterintuitive for a limit and a score threshold, and the description does not clarify expected formats.

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 is a noun phrase, "街の活気スコア" (city vitality score), which essentially restates the tool name jp_aliveness. It signals the resource (city vitality) but gives no verb, no scope, and no way to distinguish it from siblings like jp_quality or jp_density.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives among the many jp_* siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to guess entirely.

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