get_future_timeline

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds behavioral context: the tool returns a 'yearly timeline' of future plans, and the content includes specific categories (redevelopment, infrastructure, population). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences are efficient, but the Japanese repeats the English content. While helpful for local users, it adds redundancy. Front-loaded with the English description, it's mostly concise.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns (timeline of plans) but does not describe the response format or structure. Given no output schema, an agent would benefit from knowing if the response is a list, object, etc. For a tool with only two params, it's partially complete but lacks this detail.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining that 'chochou' defaults to the whole ward when omitted, which is not in the schema. It also provides an example in Japanese, clarifying usage context.

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?

Description clearly states it returns a future timeline for Nagoya wards/neighborhoods, specifying content (redevelopment, infrastructure, population projections) and time range (2025-2050). This verb+resource combo is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like get_population_outlook (broader population outlook) and simulate_aichi_future (scenario simulation).

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 use for Nagoya future planning queries but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_chochou_profile or get_zoning_info. No when-not-to-use or alternative names are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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