Cancel rate

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 does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, what data it returns, or any side effects. The description is just a noun phrase with no additional behavioral context.

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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks any informative content that would help an agent decide when to invoke the tool, making the brevity a liability rather than a strength.

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 simple nature of the tool (two optional date parameters) and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description should at least clarify what 'cancel rate' refers to and what the tool returns. It does neither, leaving the tool's context essentially undefined.

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 provides 100% coverage of both parameters (start_date and end_date) with clear defaults and formats. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'キャンセル率・件数' is essentially a restatement of the title 'Cancel rate'. It lacks a verb and does not clearly state what the tool does (e.g., retrieves, calculates, or lists). It does not distinguish this tool from any sibling 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or which alternatives might be more appropriate. The description provides no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or whether it complements other RMS tools.

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