Autumn Leaves Viewing Spots

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and description adds behavioral context: returns specific fields (dates, leaf type, popularity, GPS), per-prefecture operation, and top-destinations when prefecture omitted. 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?

Three sentences: primary use, outputs, alternative/restrictions. Every sentence adds unique value. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and output schema exists, description provides complete context: use case, output details, parameter behavior, exclusions, and sibling references.

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% and describes the parameter well. Description adds context about omitting prefecture for top destinations, reinforcing schema. Single parameter is fully documented.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'get exact spots' and resource 'autumn leaves viewing spots'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying use case (user knows prefecture) and explicitly warns against using for cross-city date matching, directing to koyo_forecast or koyo_best_dates.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (user knows prefecture), when to omit prefecture (for top destinations guide), and when not to use (cross-city date matching). Provides alternative tools (koyo_forecast, koyo_best_dates).

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