MOFA Overseas Safety Levels

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by disclosing region-level granularity, that the max level is derived and not country-wide, infectious-disease notices, tracking_since self-history, freshness and sources.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, though the opening is phrased as a question rather than an imperative. The return-value inventory is dense but each clause is informative and the disclaimer closes the scope cleanly.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the definition is more than complete for calling the tool; return contents are enumerated (somewhat redundantly with the output schema) and the disclaimer prevents misuse as travel advice. Only the sibling relationship is left implicit.

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 single country parameter is fully documented (alpha-2, alpha-3, US-HI, 4-digit MOFA code, US mainland/Hawaii behavior). The description's restatement of the code formats adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (look up / which level) and resource (Japan MOFA region-by-region danger levels) with the accepted identifier formats. It does not name or contrast with the sibling mofa_level_changes, so the agent must infer the split, keeping it below 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?

Usage is implied by the lookup framing and the limitation 'relays MOFA; no danger assessment or travel advice', but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-mofa_level_changes guidance and no stated prerequisites or exclusions beyond the disclaimer.

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?

Annotations state only readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial non-annotation behavior: changes are derived from this service's own observation record, include polling gaps and last-seen-old-state timestamps, the free window is clamped to 30 days, and the output relays MOFA without advice. That is exactly the kind of provenance and caveat detail the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, opening with the core question and then qualifying scope, window, and provenance. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical clause about region texts is somewhat awkward and the reference to an undefined 'tracking_since' adds minor noise.

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?

Output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the description supplies the windowing rule, provenance, and observation-model caveats. The only gap is the undefined 'tracking_since' and 'history_window' references, which leave a small ambiguity about where those are defined.

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 meaning the schema lacks: that an earlier 'since' is clamped (schema simply calls it an ISO date) and that include_notice_updates relates to re-issued notices with unchanged levels. The 'tracking_since' wording does not match the actual parameter name 'since', slightly muddying the mapping.

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 states a specific verb+resource: which countries had MOFA danger or infectious-disease levels (or region texts) change since a given time. That is clearly distinct from mofa_country_levels, which returns current levels. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so it stops 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?

It gives real operational context: results are limited to changes since tracking_since as observed at our polling times, and since values older than 30 days are clamped, with a pointer to history_window. No explicit 'use X instead of Y' routing is given, which keeps it at 4.

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