不動産ダッシュボード

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's a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating the UI aspect, which is not contradictory. No additional traits like auth needs or rate limits are disclosed.

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 with two short sentences (English and Japanese versions). It front-loads the key action and capabilities. While the Japanese repeats the English, this is acceptable for a bilingual tool. No wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema (context: has output schema=true), the description need not detail return values. It mentions MCP Apps UI, which provides environmental context. For a read-only dashboard opener, it is fairly complete, though it could benefit from noting that this is a UI-interaction tool rather than a data-fetching one.

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 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema's parameter descriptions already provide (e.g., area, neighborhood, layer options). It merely echoes the UI 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?

The description clearly states the tool opens a visualization dashboard with both 2D and 3D views, specifying the verb 'open' and the resource 'dashboard'. While it mentions MCP Apps UI, it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools, but siblings are mostly analysis/simulation tools, so confusion is unlikely.

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 usage when a visual dashboard is needed (2D map or 3D view), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but not directive.

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