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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It mentions the API token requirement but not that approving is likely a destructive/irreversible action, nor what happens to the underlying resource once approved; the agent has to infer the consequences.

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 short sentences with the action first and the prerequisite second; no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter action, the description covers what the tool does and the auth requirement, and there is no output schema to account for. But it leaves unstated the effect on the resource after approval and whether the action is reversible, which is significant for a potentially destructive operation.

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%, and the schema already describes 'id' as the ID of the deletion request. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so baseline 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Approve') and a precise resource ('pending deletion request'), making the action unmistakable. The sibling set includes get_deletion_requests and reject_deletion_request, so the approve verb clearly differentiates this tool from its alternatives.

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 the tool should be used when a deletion request is pending and the agent intends to approve it, and it adds the API token prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly contrast with reject_deletion_request or mention any conditions under which approval should not be used.

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

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

注釈が一切ないため、説明が動作特性を開示する責任を負うが、APIトークンが必要であること以外の情報がない。一括更新という変更操作について、部分失敗の扱い、取消可能性、応答形式、権限の詳細などが説明されておらず、透明性が不十分である。

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?

2文で必要最小限にまとまっており、目的（一括更新）が先頭に置かれている。無駄な修飾や重複がなく、簡潔さと構造の両方で優れている。

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?

出力スキーマも注釈もない中で、バッチ更新の挙動（例: 一部IDが不正な場合の挙動、成功時のレスポンス、closed_reasonとstatusの依存関係）が説明されていない。パラメータの定義はスキーマで補えるが、一括更新ツールとしての実行時コンテキストは不足している。

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?

入力スキーマが全パラメータ（place_ids, status, closed_reason）を説明しており、カバレッジは100%であるためベースラインの3が妥当。説明文自体はパラメータの意味を追加しておらず、スキーマが既に十分な情報を提供している。

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?

「複数の会場のステータスを一括で更新します」という記述で、動詞（更新）、対象リソース（会場ステータス）、範囲（複数・一括）が明確に示されている。単一の会場を更新するupdate_placeとも自然に区別できる。

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?

「複数」「一括」という言葉が、このツールを使うべき文脈（複数会場のステータスをまとめて更新する）を明確に示している。APIトークンが必要という前提条件も述べられているが、単一会場更新ではupdate_placeを使うといった明示的な代替条件の提示はない。

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 確認 implies a non-mutating read operation, and the schema hints at per-service detail, but the description itself does not disclose return behavior, side effects, or anything about what '稼働状況' actually reports. It neither contradicts annotations (there are none) nor enriches them.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The purpose is stated immediately and no word is wasted; for a tool of this simplicity the length is appropriate.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only tool, the definition is nearly adequate. However, there is no output schema and the description gives no indication of the response shape (e.g., overall status, per-service breakdown), leaving the agent to guess what a successful invocation returns. Clear gap, but minor given the tool's simplicity.

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%: the single optional 'detailed' parameter is already documented as returning per-service status when true. The description adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (確認します) and a specific resource (Saga Event Space APIのシステム稼働状況), clearly defining the tool as a health check for that system. Among the 34 sibling tools, none performs a health check, so an agent can distinguish it without ambiguity.

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 no context for when to call this tool — e.g., before dependent operations or when diagnosing failures — and names no alternatives or exclusions. The uniqueness among siblings reduces the need for alternative routing, but zero when-to-use guidance is still provided.

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

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

アノテーションが一切提供されていないため説明が負うべき責任は大きいが、「APIトークンが必要です」という認証要件の開示はスキーマには存在しない有用な行動情報である。一方で、作成後の即時公開の有無、成功時の戻り値、冪等性などの副作用については触れられておらず、開示は部分的な水準に留まる。

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?

核となる動作（作成）が最初の文に先頭配置され、続く文で必要な前提条件（APIトークン）を補足する2文構成で、一切の冗長表現がない。1語の無駄もなく、簡潔さの観点では模範的である。

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?

パラメータはスキーマが100%カバーしデフォルト値まで明記されているため、その分の欠落はない。しかし、アノテーションも出力スキーマも無い中で、APIトークンの具体的な渡し方（ヘッダーかパラメータか）、成功時の応答内容、作成後の公開状態という実行完了に必要な情報が説明から欠けている。最低限は満たすが明確なギャップがある。

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?

スキーマの説明カバー率は100%で、level のデフォルト値（info）、is_active のデフォルト値（true）、title の最大200文字、starts_at/ends_at のISO 8601形式、link_url のhttp/https制限まで個別パラメータに記載が完備している。説明文はパラメータ情報を追加しておらず、カバー率80%超のベースラインである3が妥当。

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?

「新しいお知らせを作成します」は具体的な動詞（作成）とリソース（お知らせ）を示しており、操作レベルでは list/update/delete_announcement と明確に区別できる。ただし、同じ「作成」系統の create_release_note との違い（お知らせ vs リリースノート）には言及がなく、sibling との差別化は暗黙的な範囲に留まる。

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?

いつ使うべきか、あるいは代替ツール（既存のお知らせの変更なら update_announcement、リリースノートの作成なら create_release_note）を使うべき条件についてのガイダンスが一切ない。「APIトークンが必要です」は前提条件の提示であり、利用判断の指針にはならない。

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

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only reveals that an API token is required. It does not disclose what happens on success (what is returned, whether an ID is created), whether duplicate venues are detected, or that the venue defaults to 'draft' status per the schema — all material for a mutating operation.

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 short clauses with zero filler — the core purpose is front-loaded and the auth requirement follows. It is efficiently written, though the brevity is a double-edged sword given the tool's 14-parameter complexity, which is penalized under completeness rather than here.

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 14-parameter create operation with no annotations and no output schema, a single sentence is inadequate. An agent cannot tell what the call returns on success, that status defaults to draft, or how creation relates to sibling operations like update_place and bulk_update_status. This matches the calibration pattern for mutation tools without annotations — it should do more.

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 14 parameters including required fields (name_ja, category) and enum meanings are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the rubric's baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb ('作成します' = create) and resource ('会場' = venue), making the tool's role unambiguous among siblings like update_place, delete_place, and search_places. However, it essentially translates the tool name into Japanese without narrowing scope or naming alternatives, so it doesn't fully differentiate itself the way the strongest definitions do.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus update_place (to modify an existing venue) or search_places (to find whether a venue already exists before creating a duplicate). The 'API token required' note is a prerequisite, not a usage condition, and doesn't help an agent decide between alternatives.

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

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 mentions that an API token is required, which is a useful auth constraint, but it does not describe side effects, default status behavior, return values, or whether the operation is reversible. Very little is disclosed beyond the obvious creation action.

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 concise: two short sentences, purpose first, prerequisite second. There is no redundant or filler content, and the structure makes the key information immediately accessible.

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 create mutation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is under-specified. It omits what the successful response looks like, whether status/version are validated or transformed, and any side effects beyond creating a release note. The complete parameter schema mitigates some ambiguity, but an agent still lacks behavioral context needed to understand the full impact of the call.

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%, with each parameter already having a meaningful description in the schema (e.g., version nust be semantic versioning, status defaults to draft). The tool description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a clear verb+resource structure: 'Creates a new release note.' This unambiguously states the tool's action and object. While it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, the verb 'create' and qualifier 'new' clearly separate it from list/get/update/delete variants.

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 provides one relevant prerequisite — an API token is required — which gives some usage context. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like update_release_note or delete_release_note. Usage conditions are only implied by the tool name and the word 'create'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that an API token is required to call the tool and that the token secret is shown only once, both valuable operational details. It does not, however, describe other side effects, persistence, or response behavior.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; the core action comes first, and each remaining sentence adds relevant caveats. It is tightly front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is low-complexity with fully documented parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not state what the response contains beyond hinting the secret is shown once. The auth requirement and one-time secret are useful, but return value and any token constraints remain unspecified.

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 the schema already documents name and expires_in_days and their meanings. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Create a new API token', a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the operation. The word 'new' marks it as a creation action, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_tokens, update_token, and delete_token.

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?

No guidance is given for when to create a token versus updating or deleting one, and no alternatives are named. The only context is the action itself, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate choice from the tool name.

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

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

With no annotations, the description correctly carries the burden of behavioral disclosure: it warns that an API token is required and that the operation cannot be undone. This tells the agent the operation is authenticated and destructive, though it does not detail side effects or error behavior.

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?

Three short sentences deliver exactly the essential information: the operation, the auth requirement, and the irreversibility. There is no filler or 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?

For a single-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, required auth, and permanence. It is complete enough to call correctly, though a brief statement of what the response indicates or one-sentence usage context would make it fully robust.

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 already documents the only parameter 'id' at 100% coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed beyond 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 states a specific action, 'お知らせを削除します' (delete announcement), with a clear resource. This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like create_announcement, update_announcement, and list_announcements.

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 intended use is implied by the delete verb and announcement resource, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions. The prerequisites (API token) and irreversibility are noted, but not the situational trigger.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the disclosure burden and states two key behaviors: an API token is required and the operation cannot be undone. This appropriately flags the destructive nature, though it does not mention cascading effects on related data.

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 short sentences with no filler: the action is front-loaded, and the subsequent sentence provides the essential token and irreversibility warnings. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers the core needs: target resource, required authentication, and permanence. It could be more complete by mentioning side effects or returned response status, but these are minor for this simple tool.

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%; the id parameter is already documented in the schema as the UUID of the venue to delete. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 opens with '会場を削除します' ('Deletes a venue'), a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete_announcement, delete_token, and delete_release_note by naming the target resource.

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 intended use is implied by the verb: call this when a venue must be removed. However, it provides no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives such as update_place or bulk_update_status for non-destructive changes.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context by stating that an API token is required and that the operation is irreversible, which are important behavioral traits for a destructive action. It could further disclose side effects or error behavior, but the key risks are covered.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds the authentication requirement and the irreversibility warning. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 delete operation with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the action, required credential, and irreversibility. It does not describe the response or error behavior, but given the low complexity this is not a critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the single 'id' parameter already has a clear description ('削除するリリースノートのID'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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 explicitly states the action ('リリースノートを削除します' – deletes a release note) and a specific resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_release_note, update_release_note, get_release_note, and list_release_notes.

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 usage context is implied by the delete verb and resource, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It provides a prerequisite (API token required) and an important warning (irreversible), but no direct comparison with sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that an API token is required, which hints at authentication, but it does not disclose that deletion is likely irreversible, what side effects occur, or whether the token is immediately invalidated.

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 and front-loaded with the core action. Both sentences earn their place, with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 one-parameter delete operation, this is minimally viable: the parameter is fully documented and the action is clear. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits important behavioral context such as irreversibility and the result of the operation.

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 schema fully documents the 'id' parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter, so it provides the baseline value but no additional value.

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 a specific imperative verb ('Delete') and names the exact resource ('API token'), making the action unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from sibling token operations like create_token, update_token, and get_tokens.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or conditions provided. The action itself implies usage, but the description does not help an agent decide between delete_token and update_token.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It accurately describes the core conversion behavior and expected output, but it does not mention edge cases, error behavior, coordinate system, or any caveats. This is adequate for a simple one-input tool, but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to defining what the tool does and what it returns.

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 one-parameter geocoding tool with no output schema, the description is functionally complete: it names the input and the result. It could mention optional output details or limitations, but nothing essential for basic invocation is missing.

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% and the single parameter 'address' is already described as 'The address string to geocode.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 states a specific action ('Convert an address') and a precise outcome (geographic coordinates: latitude and longitude). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like normalize_address or search_places.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you need geographic coordinates from an address string. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer the right situation.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add the useful operational detail that an API token is required, and it indicates that the result is a filterable list. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting, response shape, or any potential read limitations, so transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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 short and front-loaded, stating the core operation first and then adding filtering and authentication context. It contains little waste, but the vague 'etc.' introduces minor ambiguity. Overall it is efficient and readable.

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 list tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides reasonable context: it names the resource, indicates filterability, and states the authentication requirement. However, it leaves out pagination semantics, default ordering, and any distinction from get_audit_log_stats, so an agent may still need to infer or inspect elsewhere.

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 the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description's mention of entity_type, user_id, and action adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. It also includes the vague 'etc.' without specifying additional filter semantics, so it stays at the baseline.

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 operation as retrieving a list of audit logs, with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions filtering capabilities, which adds scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby sibling get_audit_log_stats, so it misses the full sibling-distinguishing clarity of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool instead of alternatives such as get_audit_log_stats or other listing tools. The 'API token required' note is a prerequisite rather than a selection criterion, and 'Can be filtered' states capability rather than usage context. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tool routing.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions token auth and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the response shape is, whether it reflects a time range, or how it relates to get_audit_logs. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 a single efficient sentence that states the operation and the one required condition. Every word earns its place, and no elaboration is needed for a zero-parameter tool.

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 zero-parameter stats tool, the description is adequately minimal, but it leaves ambiguity about what statistics are computed and what the response contains. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, a bit more detail about the returned metrics or scope would make it fully complete.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. Per the baseline for a zero-parameter tool, this is sufficient.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get statistics of audit logs.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_audit_logs by indicating aggregated statistics rather than raw logs, but it does not explicitly name the alternative or clarify what kind of statistics are returned.

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 only usage guidance is 'API token required,' which is a prerequisite rather than guidance on when to choose this tool over get_audit_logs or other siblings. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are provided, so the agent must infer the appropriate use case.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that an API token is required, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the default response shape or pagination behavior is, or whether only certain statuses are returned by default.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the authentication requirement is stated as a separate, concise sentence.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not clarify what fields are returned, how pagination defaults behave, or whether status filters are exclusive, leaving some operational context missing.

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 the input schema already documents all four parameters adequately. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('place deletion requests'), and the name inherently distinguishes this listing tool from the sibling approve_deletion_request and reject_deletion_request actions. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using it to review pending requests before approving or rejecting them. 'API token required' is an authentication note, not a usage condition.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the authentication requirement ('API token required') and the 'Get' phrasing implies a read-only listing, but it does not describe response shape, pagination, or default behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single front-loaded sentence containing exactly the needed information: the operation, the resource, and the auth requirement. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 list tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives the essential context but leaves gaps around response format and pagination defaults. It is minimally viable but could be more complete for an agent that needs to interpret the result.

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 the schema already documents every parameter (limit, offset, status, place_id). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a clear operation ('Get a list') on a specific resource ('duplicate place reports'), which is distinct from the mutation siblings (report_duplicate, resolve_duplicate, merge_duplicate). An agent can immediately tell this is the read/list operation.

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 the tool should be used when the caller needs to retrieve duplicate place reports, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over siblings or mention exclusions. The only additional guidance is the API token requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than a usage discriminator.

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

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 only states that detail information is retrieved, but does not mention error cases, authorization requirements, response format, or what happens when the ID does not exist. This leaves important behavioral unknowns for an agent.

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 a single clear sentence that directly conveys the tool's function. There is no filler or redundant information, and the key scoping detail (specified ID) is included efficiently.

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 one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks detail about return values, error behavior, or usage context. An agent could make a basic call, but important contextual information is absent, especially since no annotations provide any additional guarantees.

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%, with the id parameter described as '会場ID（UUID形式）'. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline expectation. No additional format or constraint guidance is needed beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the action ('取得します') and the resource ('会場の詳細情報'), and specifies that it is for a particular ID. This distinguishes it from search_places, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. It is clear and specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like search_places or get_place_stats. There are no caveats, prerequisites, or explicit exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and parameter.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that an API token is required and the 'get' wording implies a read-only operation, but it does not describe the response shape, which statuses are counted, or any pagination/grouping behavior.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'API token required' is useful operational information, and every phrase earns its place.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is minimal: it covers purpose and authentication but omits the expected return structure and the status values included. For a zero-parameter read endpoint this is workable but not fully complete.

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 zero parameters and the description adds no parameter-level detail. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is essentially nothing the description needs to clarify about invocation arguments.

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 a specific verb (取得します) and a specific resource (会場のステータスごとの件数統計), clearly indicating a statistics endpoint grouped by venue status. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_place_detail, which fetches individual place details.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_audit_log_stats or search_places. It states only the action and token requirement, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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

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 clearly indicates a read operation ('get'), which implies non-mutating behavior, but it does not disclose any error conditions, permission requirements, or what exactly 'details' contains. For a simple read tool this is minimally adequate but not enriching.

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 a single, front-loaded Japanese sentence with no extraneous words. Every element contributes to the tool's core purpose.

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 one-parameter get-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential contract: passing an ID returns the release note's details. It lacks explicit information about response shape or error handling, but given the low complexity, this is mostly complete. It does not discuss permissions or edge cases, but those are not critical for basic selection and invocation.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100%, with the 'id' parameter already described as a UUID release note ID. The description adds only the phrase 'specified ID', which adds negligible meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies per the rubric.

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 a specific verb ('取得します' – retrieves) with a clear resource ('リリースノートの詳細' – release note details) and a clear selector ('指定したID'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like list_release_notes, create_release_note, and update_release_note.

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 the usage context: when you have a release note ID and need its full details. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to invoke this tool versus listing or modifying release notes.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that authentication is required and that the result is scoped to the authenticated user, which is useful context. However, it does not describe pagination, response structure, or explicitly confirm the operation is non-destructive, though 'Get' strongly implies read-only behavior.

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 concise: two short sentences. The first states the purpose, and the second states the authentication prerequisite. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter read-only list endpoint, the description covers the action, resource, user scope, and authentication requirement. There is no output schema, but the return type ('a list of API tokens') is clearly implied. Additional detail about pagination or token fields would be nice but is not essential for correct invocation.

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 zero parameters and no required parameters, so there is little for the description to add. The description correctly implies this is a parameterless call, and the baseline for zero parameters is appropriately high.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('API tokens'), and adds the scope 'for the authenticated user.' It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling token tools create_token, update_token, and delete_token, so an agent can tell this is the read/list operation.

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 the authenticated user needs to retrieve their API tokens. It also gives a prerequisite ('API token required'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance is implicit rather than fully explicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses the authentication requirement and that the result is a presigned URL for direct R2 upload, but it omits important traits such as URL expiration, upload method (PUT), and whether a successful response returns the URL in a JSON envelope.

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 a single front-loaded sentence, with no filler. Every clause contributes: the operation, the destination, and the auth prerequisite.

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?

The tool is simple and has complete parameter documentation, but there is no output schema and the description does not state the expected response shape, expiration behavior, or how the returned URL should be used. The core action is clear, yet an agent may lack enough detail to handle the result correctly.

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%, so the input schema already fully documents both file_name and content_type. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, keeping this at the baseline.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a presigned URL to upload a photo directly to R2'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, none of which offer direct upload URL generation.

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?

It conveys clear usage context by noting the upload is direct to R2 and that an API token is required. It doesn't name exclusions or alternative tools, but no sibling tool offers the same capability, so the guidance is adequate.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the auth requirement and implies read-only via 'Get', but says nothing about default user scope (e.g., whether deleted users are included), pagination behavior, or filtering semantics.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, the second flags an essential auth precondition. Both sentences earn their place and the key information is front-loaded.

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 list tool with 5 filter parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. An agent doesn't know the default result scope, pagination behavior, response format, or how filters interact.

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 the schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a list of users'), which clearly identifies the operation and matches the tool name. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools that also touch users (get_deletion_requests, restore_user, update_user_role), so it doesn't reach the top score.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives; no exclusions or sibling comparisons. The 'API token required' note is a useful precondition but doesn't help an agent select among the many list/read siblings.

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

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 only restates filtering by level and active status, which is already visible in the input schema, and does not disclose default active_only behavior, ordering, pagination limits, authorization needs, or response shape. It is not misleading, but it adds minimal 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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose first and then the key filtering capability. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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?

The tool is a simple read/list operation with fully documented parameters, so the description is mostly functional. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits useful context such as returned fields, default values for active_only/limit, and maximum page size, which prevents it from being fully self-sufficient.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds little beyond echoing the level and active_only filters and does not clarify defaults, value semantics for active_only, or pagination constraints.

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 the action ('一覧を取得します' – retrieves a list) and the resource ('お知らせ' – announcements), and mentions available filters. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling write operations like create_announcement/update_announcement/delete_announcement and from list_release_notes.

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 usage context is implied by the resource name and read-style verb, but the description gives no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer that this is the appropriate read tool for announcements.

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

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 only says it retrieves a list; it does not mention response shape, ordering, pagination, whether draft/archived notes are included, or auth expectations.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless list endpoint.

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?

The description is adequate for a very simple list tool, but with no output schema or annotations it leaves gaps around what exactly is returned, ordering, pagination, and how it relates to get_release_note. It is minimally viable but not richly contextual.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description is consistent with a parameterless list operation.

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 states a specific verb (取得/retrieve) and a specific resource (リリースノートの一覧/list of release notes). The plural list nature is clear, distinguishing it from the singular get_release_note sibling.

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 about when to use this tool versus get_release_note or list_announcements. The intended use case is only implied by the tool name and the word 一覧, not explicitly explained.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the basic action and an auth requirement, but it does not say whether the operation is destructive, whether the original duplicate is removed, whether the merge is reversible, or what happens on success.

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 brief, with no filler or repetition. The action is front-loaded and the auth requirement is a separate useful sentence. It is concise, though it borders on under-specification rather than providing rich, well-structured guidance.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core action and the auth requirement. However, it omits important operational context such as the effect of merging on the underlying place/report, whether any confirmation or result is returned, and any conditions that must be true before invoking the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter meaning, and there is a slight mismatch: the description says 'duplicate place' while the schema describes id as 'ID of the duplicate report to merge.' The schema itself is clear enough, so no penalty beyond baseline is warranted.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Merge a duplicate place.' This is clear as a standalone action, and the required id in the schema reinforces that a specific duplicate is being targeted. However, it does not differentiate merge_duplicate from the sibling resolve_duplicate, and it leaves ambiguity between merging a 'place' versus a 'duplicate report.'

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 only usage guidance is 'API token required,' which is a prerequisite rather than guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. No context is given for when merge_duplicate is appropriate versus report_duplicate, resolve_duplicate, or delete_place.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool normalizes an address. It does not reveal what 'structured components' are returned, whether the tool fails on non-Japanese addresses, or whether any network calls or side effects occur. This is minimal transparency.

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 a single succinct sentence that communicates the core function with zero filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word earns its place.

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?

The description lacks critical information for an agent that must rely on it alone, since there is no output schema to clarify return values. It does not describe the structure of the returned components, error conditions, or expected address format. For a simple one-parameter tool, more explanation about what 'structured components' means would be needed.

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% — the single parameter 'address' is documented with 'The Japanese address string to normalize'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Normalize'), a clear resource ('Japanese address string'), and the intended outcome ('structured components'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like 'geocode' or 'search_places', which do different transformations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context in which normalization is preferred over geocoding or place search, despite siblings like 'geocode' and 'search_places' offering related address handling.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose one genuine behavioral trait — 'API token required' — which is useful auth context, and 'pending' constrains the target state. However, it does not say whether rejection is irreversible, what state the request transitions to, or what error conditions apply.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the API-token requirement is the only additional detail, and it earns its place as a prerequisite an agent needs before invoking.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is mostly adequate — purpose and auth are covered. But it omits the workflow relationship to approve_deletion_request and the post-rejection behavior, which an agent needs to gauge side effects and choose confidently between the two moderation actions.

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 the schema already fully documents the lone id parameter as 'ID of the deletion request'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 states a specific verb ('Reject') applied to a well-defined resource ('a pending deletion request'), making the action unmistakable. The verb inherently distinguishes it from the sibling approve_deletion_request, so an agent can route correctly without inspecting the schema.

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 qualifier 'pending' implies the tool only applies to requests in pending state, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance. It never names the natural alternative, approve_deletion_request, or the conditions that would favor rejecting versus approving, leaving the usage context to inference.

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

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 mention 'API token required,' which is a useful authorization note, but it does not clarify whether the report is queued for review, takes immediate effect, is reversible, or what outcome the caller should expect. For a mutation-like action, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 short sentences, front-loads the core purpose immediately, and includes the essential token prerequisite. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

This is a sparse tool definition with no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain return values, the workflow around duplicate reporting, or how this differs operationally from resolve_duplicate and merge_duplicate. The schema covers parameter semantics, but an agent is missing enough context to confidently choose and invoke this tool in the right situation.

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?

All three parameters are already fully described in the input schema, with place_id and duplicate_of having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the general 'report a place as a duplicate' framing, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('a place') with a clear intent ('as a duplicate'). This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_duplicates, resolve_duplicate, and merge_duplicate, which deal with listing, resolving, or merging rather than reporting.

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 versus the nearby duplicate-management siblings. The only extra note is 'API token required,' which is a prerequisite, not usage direction. No alternatives, exclusions, or recommended conditions are given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only reveals that an API token is required. It does not disclose whether resolving a duplicate is destructive, reversible, or what the outcome is on the underlying data.

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 text is compact and free of filler, but it is under-specified for an operation with behavioral unknowns. The action is front-loaded, but the missing context means the brevity is not appropriately balanced with informativeness.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a semantically vague verb, the description is not complete enough for an agent to know what happens when it is called. It fails to describe the result, side effects, or relationship to merge_duplicate, leaving important call decisions to inference.

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 schema already documents both parameters fully (id as the report ID, notes as optional resolution notes), so the 100% schema coverage warrants the baseline score of 3. The description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters are used.

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 states a verb and resource ('Resolve a duplicate report'), but 'resolve' is never defined—it could mean mark as resolved, close, or perform some other state change. It also does not differentiate this tool from its sibling merge_duplicate, which is a closely related duplicate-handling action.

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 instead of report_duplicate, merge_duplicate, or get_duplicates. The only qualification, 'API token required,' is an authentication prerequisite rather than a usage context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds a meaningful prerequisite, 'API token required,' and the restore action itself implies a state change from deleted to active. It does not disclose other side effects, idempotency, or error conditions.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the auth requirement. No fluff. Slightly minimal, but appropriate for a one-parameter tool.

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 restore operation with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the action and a key prerequisite. It could be more helpful by noting the expected result or that the user returns to active status.

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%, so the schema already documents the sole parameter. The description does not add details about the id format or source, but none are needed beyond the schema for this simple tool.

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?

States a specific action ('Restore') and resource ('deleted user'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like update_user_role and approve_deletion_request.

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 context for use is implied by 'Restore a deleted user' — use when you need to undelete a user. There is no explicit comparison to alternatives or any when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the search scope and filterable dimensions, and '検索します' implies a read-only, list-returning operation, but it does not mention pagination behavior, default ordering, or the shape of returned records. This is adequate for a search tool, though thin on result semantics.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core function (search venues in Saga) before the filtering capabilities. There is no filler, no repetition of schema content, and no redundant phrasing — every clause earns its place.

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 13-parameter tool, the input side is fully covered by the description plus the 100%-coverage schema. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves return shape and result semantics unspecified, and it gives no guidance on how results relate to get_place_detail. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 every one of the 13 parameters is already described in the schema, making the baseline of 3 appropriate. The description adds modest value by grouping parameters into semantic categories (keyword, category, facilities, price, capacity) that help an agent map natural-language requests to parameter groups, but it contributes no per-parameter detail beyond 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 names a specific verb and resource: '検索します' (searches) for event spaces, hotels, and social gathering venues within Saga Prefecture. It also enumerates the filter dimensions (keyword, category, facilities, price, capacity), which cleanly separates this list/search tool from siblings like get_place_detail (single-record lookup) and create/update/delete_place (mutations).

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 an agent needs to find Saga venues matching keyword, category, facility, price, or capacity criteria — but never states it explicitly. It provides no exclusions and does not name alternatives (e.g., 'for a single place's full details use get_place_detail'), leaving routing entirely to inference from sibling names.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals that an API token is required but does not clarify whether this is a partial or full update, what validation occurs, whether changes are reversible, or what side effects the operation has.

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 with two short sentences and no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the authentication requirement, though it could contain more behavioral detail without becoming bloated.

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?

The schema documents all parameters, but there are no annotations and no output schema. The description does not clarify update semantics such as partial updates or success/failure behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for an 8-parameter mutation tool.

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 covers 100% of the 8 parameters with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states '既存のお知らせを更新します' (updates existing announcements), which is a specific verb plus resource. The word '既存' clearly distinguishes this update operation from create, delete, and list 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?

The only guidance provided is that an API token is required. There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus create_announcement, delete_announcement, or other related tools, and no mention of prerequisites beyond the token.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only the API-token requirement; it never states whether the update is partial (unchanged fields preserved) or full replacement, what happens when the id does not exist or a status transition is invalid, or whether changes are reversible. The mutation fact is already evident from the tool name, leaving the description with little added behavioral value.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the token-requirement note is useful and earns its place. However, for a 15-parameter mutation tool this is under-specification rather than appropriately concise — a clarifying sentence about partial-update semantics or required permissions would materially improve it without bloating it.

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?

Complexity is high: 15 parameters, a mutation operation, no annotations, and no output schema. The description omits update semantics, expected return value, error behavior, and any differentiation from bulk_update_status. An agent could invoke the tool with valid parameters but would not know what side effects to expect or how to interpret the result.

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 15 parameters are already documented in the input schema with types, enums, and Japanese descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas applies.

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 states a clear verb+resource pair: '既存の会場情報を更新します' (updates existing place info). The qualifier '既存の' (existing) implicitly distinguishes it from create_place, and the update verb separates it from delete_place. However, it does not address the sibling bulk_update_status, which also mutates place data, so the differentiation is incomplete.

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 only guidance is 'APIトークンが必要です' (API token required), which is a prerequisite rather than usage context. There is no statement about when to prefer this tool over create_place, delete_place, bulk_update_status, or search_places, and no exclusionary conditions or workflow hints are provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose an auth requirement, but omits important update semantics such as whether unspecified fields remain unchanged, how status transitions work, or whether the operation is destructive.

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 very concise and front-loaded with the core action. Sentence count is minimal with no redundancy, though it could have used the available space to add update-behavior details without becoming verbose.

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 state-changing tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It provides the basic purpose and auth requirement, but does not explain update behavior, return values, or status constraints, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is required beyond the baseline; the token note is not tied to any schema parameter.

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 a specific verb and resource: it updates an existing release note. The word '既存の' clearly distinguishes this from create_release_note, and the action is distinct from list/get/delete siblings.

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 versus alternatives. The only extra condition mentioned is the API token requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than a usage guideline. No exclusions or alternative-tool routing are given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the operation mutates an existing token and that authentication is required, but it does not mention reversibility, response behavior, or error conditions. 'API token required' is also ambiguous—it could refer to an auth credential or the token being updated.

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 concise, using two short sentences that directly state the action and a key prerequisite. Every word serves a purpose, and the core behavior is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter mutation tool, the description is mostly adequate, but it omits return value and error behavior, and the auth requirement is vague. It provides enough to make a reasonable call but leaves some ambiguity around the meaning of 'API token required.'

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 the schema already documents both required parameters (id and name). The description adds no additional parameter details, constraints, or format expectations beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('name of an existing API token'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_token, delete_token, and get_tokens. The action is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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?

It mentions a prerequisite ('API token required') and implies usage for renaming an existing token, but it does not explicitly describe when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_token or delete_token. The intended context is clear enough from the wording, but there is no explicit routing or exclusion guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is an update and requires an API token, but does not mention side effects, reversibility, whether the change is immediate, whether existing sessions/tokens are affected, or what permissions are required beyond a valid token.

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 short sentences with no wasted words; the action is front-loaded and the token requirement is a useful, concise addition.

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 two-parameter update, the description is mostly adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema it leaves out return behavior and potential side effects. An agent may not know what to expect after calling the tool.

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%, with both parameters 'id' and 'role' documented and an enum on role. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 has a clear verb and resource ('Update the role of a user') and directly matches the tool name. It does not explicitly distinguish against sibling tools, but no sibling appears to handle the same operation, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 changing a user's role but provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool routing. The API token note is a prerequisite, not usage guidance.

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