get_meta_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation retrieves information and returns a list of classification objects, implying a read-only action. Yet it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, mention any permissions, or address potential errors. The disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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 concise, with the main purpose front-loaded and a clear Args/Returns structure. It avoids redundancy and includes useful explanatory detail about dimensions and code mappings without unnecessary length. Slightly more detail than strictly needed, but still well-structured.

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 has a single parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it returns, and how to source the parameter. It mentions the pre-research use case. It does not delve into error cases or edge conditions, but for a simple get tool with an output schema, this is sufficient.

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 schema provides zero description coverage for the only parameter, stats_data_id. The description compensates by explaining that it is the statistical table ID and that it is obtained via search_statistics, linking to a sibling tool. This adds practical meaning beyond the schema's bare type and required flag.

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 retrieves meta information (classification code system) for a statistical table, specifying the verb '取得する' and the resource. It explains what that entails (dimensions and code mappings) and distinguishes itself from data-retrieval siblings by framing it as pre-research before data acquisition.

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 provides clear usage context: it is useful for preliminary research before data acquisition, and it references how to obtain the required ID via search_statistics. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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