Japan Seasonal Festivals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true. The description adds value by specifying return details: curated events with typical dates, attendance, URLs, notes, GPS coordinates. No contradiction with annotations.

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 only two sentences, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with purpose and usage, then return details. Every sentence adds value.

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 no required parameters and low complexity, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, returns, and exclusions. Output schema exists (though not shown), so return details are adequately covered.

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% for all 3 parameters. Each parameter has detailed schema descriptions (month with examples, type with allowed values, prefecture with support). Description does not add additional semantics beyond schema, so baseline score of 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 explicitly states 'recurring Japan events' and lists specific types (fireworks, matsuri, winter festivals), making the purpose clear. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by stating what not to use it for (bloom timing, one-off concerts, weather forecasts).

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 guidance: when to use (for recurring events to plan around) and what not to use (for bloom timing, etc.). It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives but the exclusion criteria effectively define scope.

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