Best Cherry Blossom Dates for Trip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, so safety is covered. The description adds that it uses observed or forecast full-bloom dates and returns overlapping cities, providing useful behavioral context without contradicting 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, each purposeful: usage context, output description, exclusion and alternative. Front-loaded and efficient with no wasted words.

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?

With annotations covering safety, well-described schema parameters, and an output schema existing (as per context signals), the description is complete. It also addresses sibling differentiation, making it sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 detailed descriptions including format and example. The tool description does not add new parameter meaning, but schema already explains them well. 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 it returns cities with sakura viewing windows overlapping given travel dates. It specifies the verb 'returns' and the resource 'cities', and explicitly distinguishes from kawazu_forecast for early-bloom requests.

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 ('when the user provides travel dates and wants to know where sakura is likely to be best') and when not to use ('Do not use for January-February early-bloom Kawazu requests; use kawazu_forecast'), providing clear guidance and an alternative.

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