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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds significant behavioral context by specifying the evaluation axes and the output structure (decision, red flags, negotiation points, clauses), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 bilingual (English/Japanese) which adds some length, but both versions are concise and front-load the core purpose before listing outputs. It packs a lot of information into two sentences without redundant filler, appropriate for a tool with 25 parameters.

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 a complex schema (25 parameters, nested objects) and an output schema present, the description provides a solid overview of what the tool evaluates and returns. It does not explain how to fill in parameters, but the schema covers that. It also mentions the output_mode parameter (compact/detailed), which is useful context. Minor gap: no mention of data prerequisites or assumptions, but not critical given the schema richness.

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%, so the schema already documents all 25 parameters. The tool description references some parameters indirectly (e.g., 'asking price vs 公示地価/路線価/取引相場' maps to kojiPricePerSqm, rosenkaPricePerSqm, transactionMedianPerSqm) but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('review') and resource ('purchase recommendation') and details the evaluation criteria (asking price vs 公示地価/路線価/取引相場, yield, risk, future potential, contract terms) and outputs (5-axis scores, decision, red flags, negotiation points, recommended clauses). This clearly distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools like assess_property_risk or assess_contract_risk, which focus on single risk dimensions.

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 description clearly implies it is for a holistic purchase decision review ('Real estate purchase review for executives') but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of a sibling tool such as assess_property_risk or composite_value_score. It gives context but no exclusions or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer usage from the 'purchase review' wording.

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