evaluate_store_location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is read-only. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it considers foot traffic, transport, competitor distribution, and calculates a score, and that it is limited to 10 prefectures. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional useful context.

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, consisting of two front-loaded English sentences. Every word adds value, and the redundant Japanese is not detrimental for English-only agents. No unnecessary filler.

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 has 7 parameters, no output schema, and the description does not explain the return format (e.g., score range or interpretation), completeness is limited. The description covers purpose and key inputs but misses output details, which are important for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 86% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by stating the tool works only for 10 prefectures (a constraint not in the schema) and mentioning version v2.4 for neighborhood data. These details help the agent understand parameter constraints.

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 verb 'evaluate' and the resource 'store location suitability', listing specific factors (foot traffic, transport, competitor distribution). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly focusing on store location evaluation, which is distinct from other analysis tools.

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 evaluating store locations but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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