get_regional_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool searches and aggregates statistics but does not state safety (read-only), data sources, freshness, failure modes, or any side effects. The 'preset' nature is vague about what is included. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose, then explains the aggregation behavior and ends with a clear parameter description. The Args/Returns section is slightly redundant with the schema but not harmful. No filler words.

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?

The output schema handles return format, so that's covered. However, the description doesn't mention whether area names need pre-resolution (sibling resolve_area exists), doesn't explain which statistics are included, and doesn't clarify the relationship to similar tools like get_regional_data or compare_regions. For an agent to call this correctly and confidently, additional context would help.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description compensates well by explaining the 'area' parameter: it accepts either a region name (e.g., '東京都') or a code (e.g., '13000'), providing concrete examples. This gives clear meaning beyond the bare string type.

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 ('自動取得する' – automatically retrieve) and resource ('地域の総合プロファイル' – comprehensive regional profile). The 'preset' aspect distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_statistics, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_regional_data or compare_regions, which could overlap.

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 says the tool is useful '地域の概要を素早く把握したいときに' (when you want a quick overview), which gives a context but no explicit instructions on when to choose this over alternatives, nor any exclusions. It doesn't mention any prerequisites or setup.

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