tokyo_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does disclose that no sign-in is required and that economy figures are on-chain 'data, not a forecast'. However, it omits any mention of rate limits, error behavior, or response shape for a tool that returns ten different payloads.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical glossary; the structure scales to ten enum values without preamble. It is dense but every clause maps to a parameter option, so little is wasted.

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?

For a one-param, no-output-schema read tool, the per-option descriptions plus the auth and on-chain-data notes cover what an agent needs to choose correctly. Only return-format details are absent, which is defensible without an output schema.

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 coverage is 0% and the single enum-only parameter would otherwise be opaque; the description supplies a plain-language gloss for each of the ten values (proof, agents, city, trials, etc.), which is real meaning the schema does not carry. It stops short of describing returned fields per option.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Read public Tokyo Futuro state') and then defines every enum value, so an agent can tell it apart from the read/write siblings (tokyo_play, tokyo_sign_in) without opening the schema.

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?

'with no sign-in' signals this is the unauthenticated read path and implicitly contrasts with tokyo_sign_in, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative for acting on state (e.g., tokyo_play for mutations). Usage is only implied by the enum glossary.

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