analyze_renovation_yield

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is read-only. The description adds value by detailing outputs (acquisition cost, renovation cost, rent, yields, future upside) and clarifying it's a calculation tool. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two efficient sentences in English and Japanese, zero waste. Key information (purpose, location, outputs) is front-loaded and complete. 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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly states what the tool returns (acquisition cost, renovation cost, rent, yields, future plan upside). Given the tool's complexity (6 params, 4 required), this is sufficient for an agent to understand its function.

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%, with all 6 parameters well-documented. The description adds no new parameter information beyond listing categories (costs, conditions). Baseline 3 applies as 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 clearly states the tool performs renovation yield analysis for Nagoya neighborhoods, calculating acquisition cost, renovation cost, expected rent, and yields. It distinctively focuses on renovation-specific financial metrics, differentiating it from sibling tools that analyze commute, risk, or zoning.

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 implicitly suggests use for calculating renovation yield in Nagoya, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, though the specific focus on renovation yield narrows its application.

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