analyze_renovation_yield

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of 'calculate' is consistent and adds no contradiction. The description adds value by specifying it includes 'future plan upside,' but does not disclose any limitations or assumptions. Given annotations already cover safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main verb 'calculate'. It includes a Japanese version for local context with no wasted words. 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 description does not explain the return value or output structure, and there is no output schema. For a calculation tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the agent lacks information on what the result looks like. The scope is only partially addressed (Nagoya neighborhoods) but without prerequisites or data sources.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by linking parameters to outputs (e.g., 'calculate acquisition cost, renovation cost' implies how parameters like acquisitionPrice and floorArea are used), but does not detail individual parameters 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 tool calculates acquisition cost, renovation cost, expected rent, and gross/net yield for Nagoya neighborhoods. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like assess_property_risk or cross_analyze_real_estate_market by focusing on renovation yield analysis with future plan upside.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It does not state any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives. The agent has to infer usage from the tool's name and description alone.

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