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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior. The description adds the constraint of '10 prefectures' and the Japanese text mentions that a score is calculated. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as rate limits, side effects, or output format beyond the score mention.

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 description is extremely concise, two short sentences in English plus a Japanese translation, and the key purpose is front-loaded. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain what the tool returns (beyond a vague 'score' in the Japanese text), does not list the 10 prefectures, and provides no caveats or prerequisites. An agent would not know the full scope or output format from this description alone.

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 86%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. With such high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description neither enhances nor detracts.

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 clear verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('store location suitability'), listing specific considerations (foot traffic, transport, competitor distribution). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the subject matter is distinct enough that an agent can infer its use. The '10 prefectures' constraint adds scope.

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?

The purpose implies usage (evaluate a potential store location), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites. The mention of '10 prefectures' hints at a coverage limit but does not clarify which ones or when to switch to another tool.

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