Kawazu Early Cherry Blossom Forecast

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's burden is lower. It adds context by detailing the returned data (forecast comment, map links, spot coordinates, bloom percentages). It does not mention rate limits or auth needs, but these are not critical given the read-only nature. No contradictions 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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with usage conditions, followed by return values and a prohibition. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity (2 optional params, output schema exists, no required fields), the description is complete: it covers when to use, what is returned, and what not to use. No gaps for an agent to make correct invocation decisions.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it mentions 'full list of Kawazu viewing spots' which aligns with include_spots but does not introduce new insights). 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it returns Kawazu cherry blossom forecast data including JMC comment, map links, and spot details. It explicitly identifies the target user requests (January-February, Kawazu-zakura, early blossoms, Izu Peninsula) and distinguishes from standard sakura tools, making it unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidelines: when to use ('January-February cherry blossom requests', 'specifically asks about Kawazu-zakura, early blossoms, or the Izu Peninsula') and when not to use ('Do not use this for standard Somei-Yoshino sakura elsewhere'). This directly helps the agent select the correct tool from siblings like sakura_forecast.

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