Cherry Blossom Viewing Spots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: fallback logic (JMC reporter vs bloom-meter), 48-hour window, observation states, and that it also returns the prefecture's JMA reference station summary.

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 and well-structured: it leads with the primary use case, then details behavior, then ends with exclusion guidance. Every sentence is necessary and well-placed.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers data sources, fallback logic, status interpretation, and supplementary output. It is complete and leaves no ambiguity.

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% and includes examples. The description goes further by clarifying accepted input formats (English name or numeric code) and noting that only one prefecture is returned at a time, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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: retrieving exact cherry blossom viewing spots for a known prefecture, with current status and GPS coordinates. It distinguishes from siblings like sakura_forecast and sakura_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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance is provided: 'Use this when the user already knows the prefecture... Do not use this for nationwide timing comparisons or date matching; use sakura_forecast or sakura_best_dates first.'

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