japan-seasons-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the return format (curated events with typical dates, attendance, official URLs, notes, and GPS coordinates) and clarifying the scope (recurring events, not one-offs). 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and return format, and the second provides usage guidelines and exclusions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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's complexity (a filtered list with 3 optional parameters), annotations cover safety (read-only, idempotent), and the description adds clear purpose, usage guidelines, and return format details. However, there is no output schema, so the description could benefit from more detail on response structure, but it's largely complete for a read-only tool.

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%, meaning the input schema already fully documents all three parameters (month, type, prefecture) with descriptions, titles, and constraints. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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's purpose: to return curated recurring Japan events (festivals) with specific attributes like dates, attendance, URLs, notes, and GPS coordinates. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for 'recurring Japan events' rather than blooms, concerts, or weather forecasts, which aligns with sibling tools like sakura_forecast or weather_forecast.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when the user wants recurring Japan events to plan around') and when not to use it ('Do not use this for bloom timing, one-off concerts, or weather forecasts'), providing clear alternatives and exclusions that differentiate it from sibling tools.

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