list_offices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is fetched directly from MF and that there is no local ledger, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether it can fail due to auth/network, or what the response shape is. The description is honest but incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the implementation note is concise. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it would benefit from stating that this is a read-only operation and what the response contains (e.g., office IDs and names). The missing return-value context is a minor gap.

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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter (accounting_only). The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists the offices (事業者) available for this API key. It also adds a useful implementation detail (fetched directly from MF, no local ledger), which helps distinguish it from a cached or locally maintained list. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool to differentiate from, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description implies when to use it: when you need the list of offices available to the current API key. It also implies a contrast with a self-managed ledger ('自前の台帳は無い'), suggesting it is the authoritative source. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the siblings, so guidance is only implied.

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