Building Seismic-Standard Check

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds behavioral context by mentioning 'risk context' and clarifying the tool is not a verdict, plus a referral action. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core action and inputs, the second adds a caveat and referral. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description conveys the classification output and its limitations sufficiently for an agent to decide and redirect. It doesn't detail return format, but the core purpose and boundary are clear, and schema covers parameters.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The description only restates 'build year and structure' without adding new meaning; the schema already provides details on enums and ranges.

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 uses the specific verb 'Classify' and identifies the resource ('building's seismic standard') with named classification types (旧耐震 / 新耐震 / 2000 wooden standard). It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating 'This is NOT a safety verdict' and referencing taishin_subsidy_guide.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context: 'from a build year and structure the USER provides'. It also provides when-not-to-use ('NOT a safety verdict') and a specific alternative ('direct the user to a professional 耐震診断 via taishin_subsidy_guide').

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