ファミリー適性評価

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the three axes and prefecture scope but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like response format or performance limits. No contradiction 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?

The description is two short sentences (English and Japanese) that efficiently convey the core purpose. However, the bilingual repetition is slightly redundant; a single clear statement might be more concise.

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?

With 6 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how to use the various location parameters (area vs prefecture vs neighborhood) or what the output contains. The Japanese translation adds no new context.

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 67%, covering most parameters. The tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides; for example, it does not explain how area, prefecture, or neighborhood interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 assesses family-friendliness across three axes (education, safety, healthcare) for housing suitability, limited to 10 prefectures. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like assess_exterior_visuals or assess_property_risk, which target different aspects.

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 is for evaluating family-friendliness, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like analyze_commute_accessibility or predict_corporate_demand. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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