Opportunity Radar

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not contradict. However, it adds little beyond stating it returns hypothesis cards. Rate limits, API key prerequisites for optional features (useGeminiNarrative, includeExternalFreshness) are not disclosed in the 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 concise with two clear sentences plus a Japanese equivalent. It front-loads purpose. The Japanese version may be redundant for English-prompted agents but does not harm structure significantly.

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 an output schema explaining return values, the description covers the core function adequately. It lacks details on the multi-source scoring or how hypothesis cards are generated, but the output schema likely covers that. For a scan tool with 10 params, it is mostly complete.

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 70%, meaning most parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond summarizing the goal parameter. It provides no extra context for the 30% uncovered parameters.

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 scans a prefecture for undervalued areas matching specific goals (investment/store/family/office/development) and returns hypothesis cards with multi-source scoring. This distinguishes it from more focused sibling tools like analyze_commute_accessibility or drill_down_local_analysis.

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 based on goal (e.g., investment) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives. Given many sibling tools with overlapping themes, more explicit guidance would help.

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