drill_down_local_analysis

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of Markdown output adds some context beyond safety. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like data coverage limitations or response structure, missing an opportunity to fully inform the agent.

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 informative English sentences followed by a Japanese translation. It is front-loaded with key purpose and output format. The Japanese text is redundant but not harmful. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tighter.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters and no output schema, the description does not detail what the output contains (beyond mentioning Markdown), nor does it explain the default export format confusion. It lacks coverage on focus, prefecture, and exportFormat behavior, leaving gaps for an agent to understand the full tool behavior.

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 80%, so most parameters have descriptions. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'neighborhood level' and 'foot traffic, commercial, education', which correlates with the focus and neighborhood parameters but does not provide syntax or format details beyond what the schema already offers.

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 performs 'drill-down local analysis at block/neighborhood level' covering foot traffic, commercial, and education. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from higher-level siblings like 'compare_prefectures' or 'get_real_estate_macro_snapshot', though it does not explicitly list alternatives.

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 detailed neighborhood-level analysis, but it does not provide explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, nor does it name alternatives. The context is clear from the name and description, but no exclusions or sibling differentiation are given.

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