jma_find_area

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states that no API key is needed, that results are ranked matches, and it explains the area levels and hierarchy. It does not explicitly describe error behavior or rate limits, but for a read-only lookup this is strong disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the core action and accepted formats, then moves into return details and usage guidance. Every sentence contributes: examples, level definitions, ambiguity handling, and the no-API-key note.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains what is returned: ranked matches with level, hierarchy path, and office_code. Combined with the sibling routing guidance and input format details, an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the query and limit parameters, including examples. The description reinforces accepted input formats and JMA codes, but adds little beyond the schema's own parameter documentation; 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 states a specific verb and resource: looks up JMA area codes for a place in Japan. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by explaining that jma_get_forecast and jma_get_warnings usually accept place names directly, while this tool is for resolving ambiguity.

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 explicitly says you can usually pass a place name straight to the forecast and warning tools, and to call this first when a name is ambiguous, citing the 府中 example. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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