assess_family_friendly_score

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, safe and non-destructive. The description adds context about the three axes and prefecture coverage, but does not elaborate on output format or limitations beyond the 10-prefecture scope.

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 short sentences, immediately stating the purpose and key axes. No redundant information; every word serves a purpose.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and complex scoring logic, the description is basic. It covers the core purpose but lacks information on return values, scoring interpretation, and constraints beyond the 10-prefecture limit.

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%, so the description's baseline is 3. The description provides additional context (axes, prefectures) but does not add detailed semantics for each parameter, such as how 'childAge' affects scoring.

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 what the tool does: assesses family-friendliness across education, safety, and healthcare axes. It specifies a scope of 10 prefectures. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that analyze other factors like commute, renovation, or 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?

The description implies the tool is for assessing family-friendliness but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions for use.

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