災害リスク評価

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the tool provides integrated scoring and covers 10 prefectures, but does not elaborate on other behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, response format, or error conditions).

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with key information. The Japanese line is redundant but not detrimental. Every sentence contributes value, though merging English and Japanese could improve efficiency.

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 complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and key features but omits details on parameter usage (e.g., latlng vs. address, how prefecture/neighborhood interact) and does not explain the integrated scoring mechanism. The existence of an output schema partially compensates.

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%, with descriptions for address, prefecture, and neighborhood. The description adds context that riskTypes include flood, landslide, and earthquake and mentions coverage across 10 prefectures, but does not clarify the latlng object or required address parameter beyond what the schema states.

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. This verb+resource+scope combination distinctly separates it from sibling tools like 'assess_family_friendly_score' or 'forecast_land_price_trend'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It merely describes functionality without contextual selection advice.

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