cross_analyze_real_estate_market

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description mentions 'cross-analyze' which aligns with read-only behavior, but does not add further behavioral context such as data freshness or limitations. With annotations present, the description adds minimal additional transparency.

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 English, one Japanese), front-loading the key purpose and scope. No redundant information. 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?

The tool has 14 parameters and no output schema. Despite listing factors analyzed, the description does not explain the output format or what the cross-analysis returns (e.g., report, scores, visualization). Given the complexity, this omission leaves the agent without crucial context on what to expect.

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 79%, with most parameters described adequately in the input schema (e.g., prefecture accepts Japanese/English/ISO codes). The tool description itself does not elaborate on parameters beyond listing them, but the schema carries the burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema coverage is high.

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 cross-analyzes real estate market with multiple factors (land price, investment score, foot traffic, education, corporate presence) and specifies it covers 10 prefectures. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on single aspects like risk assessment or price forecasting.

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 the tool is for broad market analysis but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like forecast_land_price_trend or assess_property_risk when a more specific analysis is needed. Usage context is implied but not clarified.

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