assess_family_friendly_score

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying the assessment axes and coverage area. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like data freshness or that it only applies to Japan, though this is implied by prefecture names.

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 sentences in English followed by Japanese translation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and key attributes (axes, coverage). The bilingual text, while redundant for an English-only agent, does not significantly bloat the description.

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 having no output schema, the description fails to specify the output format (e.g., score scale, rating). For a tool that likely returns a numerical score, this is a significant omission. The description also does not mention geographic constraints (only 10 prefectures) explicitly in English, though stated in Japanese.

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?

With schema coverage at 67% and missing description for 'latlng', the tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema. It mentions axes but does not explain parameters like 'area' or 'childAge' further, leaving gaps for the undocumented 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: assessing family-friendliness across three axes (education, safety, healthcare) and specifying coverage of 10 prefectures. The verb 'assess' combined with the resource 'family-friendliness' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'compare_prefectures' or 'composite_value_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?

The description implies usage for evaluating family suitability in Japanese prefectures but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No guidance on exclusions or when to choose sibling tools like 'compare_prefectures' or 'get_chochou_profile' is provided.

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