Cherry Blossom Viewing Spots

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds significant behavioral context: fallback logic for observations (JMC reporter within 48 hours vs. bloom-meter estimate with stale secondary), and inclusion of JMA reference station summary. This goes beyond the 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 compact, front-loaded with usage guidance, covers behavior, and ends with exclusions. Every sentence is necessary and well-structured.

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 complexity (output schema present, single parameter, no nested objects), the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage, behavioral logic, parameter details, and references sibling tools. The output schema accounts for return values, so no further detail needed.

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 the description adds value by specifying accepted formats (English name or numeric code) and the limitation of returning one prefecture at a time. This enhances the schema description.

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 with current status and GPS coordinates for a known prefecture. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it is not for nationwide timing comparisons, directing to sakura_forecast or 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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when the user already knows the prefecture') and when not to ('Do not use this for nationwide timing comparisons or date matching; use sakura_forecast or sakura_best_dates first'). Provides clear guidance for selection.

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