Japan TITP Administrative Actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the content categories returned (prices, licensing, limits, freshness), which is useful context, but an output schema exists and would surface the same structure, so the incremental disclosure is modest.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause enumerates distinct payload content, so nothing is wasted.

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?

With no parameters, a read-only annotation, and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values or safety. It is nearly complete for this simple tool; only a hint about when to reach for it is absent.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies under the '0 params' rule.

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?

Clear verb ("List") plus resource ("the tools of this server") and an enumeration of the payload contents (prices, data sources, licensing, daily limits, freshness). It is plainly distinguishable from siblings like get_receipt or drone_flight_check, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; usage is only implied by the discovery framing ("the tools of this server"). An agent can infer this is the entry point for learning available tools and pricing, but nothing states that intent directly.

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?

Goes well past readOnlyHint=true by disclosing cost ('Free'), the failure mode and error code (RECEIPT_NOT_FOUND for unknown/unsettled ids), and the retention window (90 days after settlement). These are exactly the runtime traits an agent needs before calling.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the receipt_id, followed by behavioral facts. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers cost, error behavior, and retention limits. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already specifies the receipt_id format ('rcpt_' + 64 hex characters, maxLength 80). The description only names the identifier without adding format or constraint detail, so the schema does the real work.

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 specific verb ('re-fetch'), specific resource ('stored result of a settled paid call'), and the keying mechanism ('by its receipt_id'). The 're-fetch ... for when the response was lost' framing clearly separates it from the unrelated sibling tools.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering scenario: use it when a paid call's response was lost after payment. It also implies the boundary condition (unknown or unsettled ids are not valid targets), but does not name an alternative tool or state a when-not clause for other lookup paths.

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?

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses the key behavioral traits: it is a derived local version record rather than ISA's live files, unpublishable actions are silently omitted, departures are reported only as an anonymous count per version, and history is bounded by tracking_since with a 30-day free window. These are exactly the caveats an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 core question is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct constraint (data provenance, per-change contents, exclusions, history window, free tier). The clause about counts 'that left the files per version' is dense and slightly opaque, costing a bit of clarity.

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?

With four parameters, an output schema and readOnly annotations, the description covers provenance, output shape (action id, observed_at, changed fields, before/after) and boundary conditions. The one soft spot is the vague handling of removed-action counts — it is unclear where in the response those numbers appear.

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%, so since, limit, change_type and target_type are already documented in the schema itself. The description adds only that 'since' bounds a change window; it offers no extra semantics for the enum filters or the limit default. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter detail.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Which TITP administrative actions were added to or changed') plus a scope constraint ('since a date'), which cleanly separates it from titp_action_lookup's current-state retrieval. An agent can tell this is a change-history feed over ISA's published files without opening the schema.

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?

It gives actionable context for choosing it: history begins at tracking_since, and only the last 30 days are free. However, it never explicitly names titp_action_lookup or catalog as the alternative for current-state or single-action needs, leaving that routing to inference.

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?

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by disclosing the three possible result statuses and, critically, that not_found_in_checked_records is not proof of no action because actions no longer published are not returned. It also states what each result carries (type, date, reason as published, source file, as-of date), giving the agent real confidence bounds.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the decision question and the lookup keys before the return-status detail. It is dense with parentheticals and would scan slightly better as a short list, but almost every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

Despite an output schema already existing, the description adds the epistemic caveat about not_found results that the schema cannot express, and covers input forms, filters and result fields. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or interpret a negative result is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds behavioral meaning the schema lacks: partial name input yields candidates rather than a hard miss, and it supplies concrete identifier examples (1708000404, 1704019156). It does not discuss limit or prefecture semantics, which stay in 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?

Opens with a concrete question the tool answers ('has this TITP supervising or implementing organization in Japan had an administrative action published by ISA, and when?') and names the exact resources used to look it up. It is clearly distinct from the sibling titp_action_changes, which is the change feed rather than a point lookup.

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?

States the lookup keys (permit number, certification number, organization name) and clarifies that exact names match after normalization while partial names return candidates, which guides invocation choice. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over titp_action_changes or get_receipt, so the when-not guidance is implicit.

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