execute_yaizu_api

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 data and automatically configures endpoints, but lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only (though implied by '取得します'). For a tool interacting with an external API, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though the Japanese text might add minor complexity for non-Japanese agents. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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's complexity (API interaction with 3 parameters) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and parameters well, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns: str: APIレスポンス'), so return values needn't be detailed. However, it lacks behavioral context like auth or error handling, which is a gap for an API tool.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains 'entity_type' with examples (Aed, EvacuationShelter, DisasterMail), clarifies 'params' as JSON string for additional query parameters, and specifies 'limit' range (1-1000) and default (10). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail the structure of 'params' JSON.

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: '焼津市のFIWARE NGSIv2 APIからエンティティデータを取得します' (retrieves entity data from Yaizu City's FIWARE NGSIv2 API). It specifies the verb '取得します' (retrieves) and resource 'エンティティデータ' (entity data). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute_api_endpoint' or 'get_api_details', which likely serve related but distinct purposes.

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 mentions 'APIカタログの情報を基に適切なエンドポイント設定を自動で行います' (automatically configures appropriate endpoints based on API catalog information), which implies some context, but doesn't specify when to choose this over siblings like 'execute_api_endpoint' or 'search_api_docs'. No explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives are included.

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