generate_area_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating no destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing output format choices (Markdown/PDF), branding support, and geographic scope (10 prefectures), which are behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

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 (two English sentences plus a Japanese repetition) and front-loads the core purpose. However, the Japanese translation is redundant for an English interface, costing some efficiency. Still, it remains mostly succinct.

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 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the main action and output formats but omits higher-level context about report contents (e.g., charts, transaction data, branding elements). The input schema fills some gaps, but the description could better summarize the tool's capabilities.

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 77%, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning—it doesn't explain the purpose of parameters like 'includeCharts' or 'neighborhood'. The schema provides adequate descriptions, but the description itself contributes no extra semantics.

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 'generate' and the resource 'comprehensive area report', specifying output formats (Markdown/PDF) and branding support. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'compare_prefectures' or 'drill_down_local_analysis' which focus on comparative or granular 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 for generating area reports but does not provide explicit context on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'compare_prefectures' for comparisons, 'drill_down_local_analysis' for deeper dives). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance is given.

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