ポートフォリオ統合リスク・リターン最適化

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to cover basic safety. It adds behavioral context by noting the tool 'aggregates hazards, land price trends, and generates allocation strategies', which is helpful but does not reveal detailed side effects or dependencies.

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 sentences (English and Japanese) and front-loads the purpose. No redundant information. However, a slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve scanability.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It mentions 'generates allocation strategies', which is somewhat vague but adequate. A brief note on the output format (e.g., portfolio weights) would improve completeness.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no new meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as 'properties' array and 'targetGoal' enum. Baseline score of 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 optimizes real estate portfolio risk and return by aggregating hazards and land price trends. It specifies the verb 'optimize' and the resource 'real estate portfolio risk & return'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'portfolio_optimizer', which may cause confusion.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling 'portfolio_optimizer'. There is no mention of prerequisites or contextual triggers for using this tool.

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