JMA Seismic Intensity (震度) Meaning

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context about using the official 気象庁 scale, but it does not describe the output format, possible disclaimers, or how the Nankai scenario fact relates to the returned explanation. This is acceptable but not rich behavioral detail.

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 brief and the first sentence is directly informative. The second sentence about the Nankai scenario adds contextual relevance but is somewhat tangential to the core tool function; it is not excessive but not perfectly zero-waste either.

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, read-only explanation tool with fully documented schema parameters and safe annotations, the description provides adequate context: what the tool explains, the scale used, and the scenario relevance. It does not detail return values, but the verb 'Explain' implies textual output, and no output schema exists, so this is not a major gap.

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% description coverage for both parameters (shindo and language) with enums and clear titles, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description only loosely echoes the intensity range ('5弱–7') without adding new parameter-level guidance, such as how the 'language' parameter affects output.

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 a specific action ('Explain what... means') on a specific resource (JMA seismic intensity levels) and explicitly covers the scope ('for people and buildings'). It distinguishes the tool's explanatory purpose from sibling tools like nankai_overview or official_hazard_maps by emphasizing the meaning of intensity levels rather than overviews or maps.

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 the tool: when one needs to understand the practical meaning of a JMA intensity level (5弱–7) for people and buildings. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate use, especially given the official-scale reference.

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