Find a Tabelog area

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully signals that results come from Tabelog's own index rather than an external geocoder, but it says nothing about what comes back (candidate names, IDs, counts) or how to feed a result back into a search — relevant since there is no output schema.

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?

Two tight sentences: what it returns first, when to use it second. Zero filler, no repetition of the title, and the important context is front-loaded.

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 read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, this covers purpose and trigger adequately. The only real gap is what a result looks like and how to use it to correct resolved_area, which a short clause could have closed.

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 schema itself supplies the format guidance with examples (銀座, 恵比寿駅) plus length bounds. The description only restates 'Japanese place name', adding no syntax or normalization hints, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 establishes that this returns Tabelog's own place-name suggestions covering stations, towns, and areas, which distinguishes it from restaurant-search siblings like search_restaurants. The verb is implicit ('suggestions for') rather than an explicit 'look up', but the resource and scope are 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?

'Use when a search's resolved_area looks wrong' gives a concrete triggering condition tied to another tool's output, which is exactly the kind of routing signal an agent needs. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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