get_chochou_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds context about returning 'current metrics' but does not disclose additional behaviors (e.g., pagination, return format). With annotations covering safety, the description contributes marginal value.

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?

Two short sentences (one English, one Japanese) with no superfluous text. Critical information is front-loaded: the tool's purpose and scope are immediately clear.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema) and good annotations, the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit mention of the return format, but the tool name and context strongly imply a profile output. Minor gap prevents a 5.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description lists example metrics (land price, population, etc.) but does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('profile') and resource ('current metrics for Nagoya wards/neighborhoods'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like forecast_land_price_trend or get_population_outlook. It states exactly what the tool does: returns land price, population, households, and ongoing plans.

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 current metrics, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as forecast_land_price_trend or get_population_outlook. No usage exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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