get_future_timeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool returns a yearly timeline and covers specific topics, but does not disclose data freshness, pagination, or limits. Moderate additional 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?

Two concise sentences (English and Japanese) that front-load the key purpose. The bilingual addition is slightly redundant but acceptable for the audience.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters, annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, scope, and output format (yearly timeline). Minor gap in return structure details.

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%, so both parameters are well-documented. The description mentions wards and neighborhoods but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the tool returns a future timeline of redevelopment, infrastructure, and population projections for Nagoya wards/neighborhoods from 2025-2050. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on temporal planning data rather than current analysis or forecasts.

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 like forecast_demographic_shift or simulate_aichi_future. The description implies usage for future planning but does not provide exclusion criteria or mention related tools.

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