compare_prefectures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat this. It adds output format details (markdown, JSON, xlsx) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like response size or side effects. Overall, it complements annotations adequately.

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 a single sentence with key information, including a Japanese version. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every part earns 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the high-level purpose and output format but lacks details on metrics meaning and usage in different scenarios. Schema descriptions partially compensate, but overall completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 57%, with most parameters already described in the schema. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, such as the maximum number of prefectures. It does not compensate for the undocumented parameters (the remaining 43%) significantly.

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 explicitly states the verb 'compare' and the resource 'prefectures', along with specific aspects (land price, population, risk, investment score). It distinguishes this tool from more specific siblings like assess_property_risk or forecast_land_price_trend by offering a broad comparison across multiple prefectures.

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 comparing multiple prefectures but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or guidance on when not to use it are provided, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and description.

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