analyze_commute_accessibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it calculates travel times, routes, and score, which is consistent. However, it does not discuss edge cases, data freshness, or scope limitations beyond the inputs.

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 (one English, one Japanese) that front-load the core purpose. No fluff, though the bilingual approach may be redundant for an English-only agent.

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 a simple analyzer with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and produces. It does not detail return format, but the task is straightforward.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description does not add meaning to parameters beyond the schema's own descriptions (e.g., city, address, coordinates).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it is a 'transit commute accessibility analyzer to regional station hubs' and lists calculations: travel times, routes, and overall score. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_renovation_yield' or 'assess_contract_risk'.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or situations where it is appropriate or not.

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