get_stats_data_csv

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers nothing beyond the basic purpose. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication might be needed, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite 'start_position' and 'limit' parameters), error conditions, or what the CSV output contains. The description is completely inadequate for a tool with 25 parameters.

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, efficient Japanese sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though what it communicates is extremely limited. There's no wasted verbiage or structural issues.

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 complex tool with 25 parameters (only 1 required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. While an output schema exists (which helps with return values), the description doesn't explain when to use this tool, what the parameters mean, behavioral characteristics, or how it differs from alternatives. This is a data retrieval tool with significant complexity that needs far more explanation.

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 0%, meaning none of the 25 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides zero information about any parameters - not even explaining the required 'stats_data_id' or what the various 'cdcat', 'lvcat', 'cdtime', 'cdarea' parameters mean. For a tool with this many undocumented parameters, the description fails completely to add any parameter semantics.

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 '統計データをCSVで取得する' (Get statistical data in CSV format) states a clear verb ('取得する' - get) and resource ('統計データ' - statistical data), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_stats_data' or 'get_stats_data_bulk'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about what kind of statistical data or how this differs from similar tools.

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. With 12 sibling tools including 'get_stats_data' (presumably non-CSV version), 'get_stats_data_bulk', and various catalog/metadata tools, there's no indication of when CSV output is preferred, what prerequisites exist, or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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