3D用途地域・法的斜線制限自動監査

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the metrics being checked but doesn't disclose behavior on compliance failure (e.g., error vs. report with violations) or any required permissions. Provides some context but not fulsome.

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?

Two-sentence description in two languages is efficient and front-loaded with key purpose. The bilingual approach is slightly redundant but not wasteful. Clear and to the point.

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?

Has an output schema (not shown but specified), so return values are covered. Tool has 12 params (8 required) and description explains the high-level audit scope. Could specify the audit output format (e.g., pass/fail, compliance report) but overall sufficient for a compliance-checking tool.

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 coverage is 92% with parameter descriptions in Japanese/English. The description mentions specific metrics (FAR, coverage, etc.) which align with parameters, but adds minimal meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it audits proposed building metrics against local zoning rules, listing specific metrics (FAR, coverage, slant line, height limit). The bilingual text reinforces purpose, and it distinguishes from siblings like get_zoning_info which is likely more passive.

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 context (auditing compliance for proposed buildings) but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives like get_zoning_info or assess_property_risk. No exclusions or when-not guidance provided.

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