assess_property_risk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that the tool provides integrated scoring and covers 10 prefectures, which are useful behavioral traits. No contradictions exist, and the description complements the annotations well.

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 sentences, one in English and one in Japanese, with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and scope, making every sentence earn 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 covers the main purpose and scope but lacks details on output format (no output schema) and parameter usage. It mentions 'integrated scoring' but does not specify how results are returned. For a tool with 5 parameters and nested objects, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 60% (3 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add any information about parameters beyond the schema. It fails to explain the latlng object or riskTypes parameter, which lack schema descriptions. Given moderate coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 property disaster risk for flood, landslide, and earthquake with integrated scoring across 10 prefectures. It uses a specific verb ('Assess') and resource ('property disaster risk'), distinguishing it from siblings that focus on other risk types like contract risk or renovation yield.

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 property disaster risk assessment, providing clear context without explicit exclusions. It does not name alternatives but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand when to invoke this tool versus other risk-assessment siblings.

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