Analyze Alcohol Checks / アルコールチェック分析

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behavioral details: check rate calculation logic depending on date (past vs current), and that it shows status, violations, and stats. However, it does not mention any side effects or permissions.

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 verbose with both English and Japanese, and includes details that could be more concise. The first sentence states purpose, but the check rate explanation adds length. It is functional but not tight.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main functionality and explains a key behavioral nuance (check rate calculation). It does not describe the return format, but that is acceptable for this context.

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%; all parameters are described in the schema. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'partial match' is repeated). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool analyzes alcohol check results, showing check status, violations, check rate, and statistics. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_daily_reports and get_drivers by focusing specifically on alcohol checks.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., get_daily_reports). The context is implied but not explicit.

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