将来人口推計

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 it is a safe read operation. The description adds data source (NIPSSR) but no additional behavioral traits beyond what the annotations convey.

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, one English and one Japanese, succinctly conveying the core information. No wasted words, and the key points are front-loaded.

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?

Essential information is provided: time points, metric, data source. However, without an output schema, the description does not explain the return format or structure, which would help the agent process the result.

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%, and each parameter has a description. The tool description does not add meaningful extra meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates that area can be omitted for full prefecture, which is already in the schema.

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 provides population outlook to 2050 at specific time points (2030/2040/2050) and includes decline rate, sourced from NIPSSR. It specifies the resource and action, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like forecast_demographic_shift or simulate_aichi_future.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what the tool does, not the context in which it should be preferred over other demographic or forecasting tools.

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