get_meta_info_csv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves meta information in CSV format, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, what the CSV structure includes, or if it's a one-time fetch versus streaming. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, concise sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as it omits necessary details for effective use.

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 tool has an output schema (which likely defines the CSV structure), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, one parameter of unclear semantics, and multiple sibling tools, the description is minimally adequate but lacks guidance on usage, parameter meaning, and behavioral context. It meets a basic threshold but has clear gaps.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'stats_data_id' with 0% description coverage, meaning its meaning is undocumented. The tool description adds no information about this parameter—it doesn't explain what 'stats_data_id' represents, how to obtain it, or its format. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's semantics unclear.

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 the tool's purpose in Japanese as 'get meta information of statistical tables in CSV format.' This is clear about the verb (get) and resource (meta information of statistical tables), but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_meta_info' (which likely returns non-CSV format) or 'get_stats_data_csv' (which might return actual data, not metadata). The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose CSV format over other formats (e.g., from 'get_meta_info'), what context it's suited for, or any prerequisites. Without such information, users must infer usage from the name and sibling tools alone.

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