generate_area_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. The description adds branding support as a behavioral trait, but lacks details on output structure, limitations (e.g., PDF base64 return), or prefecture-specific behavior. The description does not contradict 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 lines in English and Japanese), front-loading key information: output formats, branding, and geographic scope. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the Japanese version is redundant.

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's complexity (13 parameters, no output schema), the description lacks detail on report content (e.g., sections, data sources). It mentions 'comprehensive' but does not specify what is included, leaving the agent without a clear picture of the output.

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 77% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond a generic overview, so it meets baseline expectations without enhancing understanding.

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's purpose: generating comprehensive area reports in Markdown or PDF with branding support, limited to 10 prefectures. The verb 'generate' and resource 'area report' are specific, and the scope differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on analysis or comparisons.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'compare_prefectures' or 'cross_analyze_real_estate_market'. The description does not provide conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name.

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