get_e_stat_meta_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only retrieval from an external API and specifies the return type as a string. It lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or potential errors, so it is minimally adequate.

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 structured with clear sections but is somewhat redundant due to repeating the same information in English and Japanese. The front-loaded summary is good, but every sentence does not earn its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, parameter, and return type. It could include error handling or response format details, but is reasonably complete for a straightforward API wrapper.

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 only parameter, stats_data_id, is explained beyond the schema with a description and example (e.g., '0000010201'). This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 from the E-Stat API based on a stats_data_id, listing the types of meta info (table, classification, regional). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that search tables or get specific data.

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 implies usage context by specifying it operates on a given statistics table ID, making it clear this is for fetching metadata for a specific table. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so a perfect score is not warranted.

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