総合価値スコア

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to emphasize safety. The description adds that it produces a score and outputs like radar and AI narrative, but it omits that the AI narrative requires a Gemini API key (mentioned only in parameter description). This dependency is not disclosed in the main description.

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: English followed by Japanese translation. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no fluff. Every word adds value.

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 presence of annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description adequately tells an agent what the tool computes and what it returns. It could be improved by noting that the AI narrative requires an API key, but overall it is sufficiently complete for decision-making.

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 100% with detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters, including the nested weights object. The description mentions the five axes, which provides context for the weights parameter, but does not add significant meaning beyond 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 the tool fuses 5 specific axes (land price, education, transport, future plans, risk) into a single 0-100 score and lists the outputs (radar, tier, peer comparison, AI narrative). It distinguishes this composite analysis from sibling tools like assess_property_risk or forecast_land_price_trend by the explicit combination of multiple factors.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or trade-offs compared to sibling tools like assess_property_risk or cross_analyze_real_estate_market.

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