Official Hazard Maps for an Address

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context: it does not compute hazard values itself but links to authoritative sources, and mentions the types of values embedded in those maps (predicted intensity, tsunami inundation). It does not address error cases or link format, but the added context goes beyond 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and each sentence earns its place: the first states the core function, the second clarifies the server's bridging role. No wasted words.

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 simple tool without an output schema, the description explains what is returned (links to official hazard maps with specific value types) and explicitly sets expectations about the server's own computation. It is nearly complete, though it could mention the response structure or behavior on undeliverable addresses to fully compensate for the missing output schema.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('address' and 'language'), including an example and enum. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, and with full schema coverage, a baseline 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 clearly identifies the tool's function: geocoding a Japanese address and returning links to official government hazard maps. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it bridges to authoritative sources rather than computing hazard values, differentiating from tools like building_seismic_check or nankai_overview.

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 implies when to use this tool: when exact per-address official values are needed. It also clarifies what the tool does not do (compute hazard values), which helps rule out alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for different scenarios, such as geocode_address for plain geocoding or nankai_overview for regional overviews.

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