Konbini Item Lookup

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: items are AI-compiled, some are flagged estimates, not human-verified, and each item returns source URL, type, and confidence. 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with English, followed by a Japanese duplicate. Every sentence adds value (purpose, data sources, caveats). The duplication slightly reduces conciseness but aids international users.

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 read-only lookup tool with excellent annotations and full schema coverage, the description adds necessary context about data quality and return fields (source URL, type, confidence). It is complete for the tool's purpose.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the input schema. The description does not add new parameter-level information beyond what is already in the schema.

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 it looks up konbini items by chain, listing the four main chains (7-Eleven, Lawson, FamilyMart, Ministop). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_food or restaurant_meal by focusing specifically on convenience store items.

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 usage for konbini items but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like search_food or restaurant_meal. It does not state exclusions or prerequisites.

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