ChatGPTビジュアル要約

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, signaling a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds behavioral details such as 'compact markdown fallback' and optimization for ChatGPT, beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences (one English, one Japanese) and front-loads the purpose. The bilingual repetition adds length but serves the target audience. It is efficient for its content.

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 covers the main output components and usage context. With an output schema available, the description does not need to detail return format. It provides a solid understanding of what the tool does and when to use it.

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 100%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds high-level output context (map, charts, actions) but does not provide additional semantics for individual parameters 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 renders a 'real estate visual summary with map, charts, recommended next actions, and compact markdown fallback.' It also explicitly says to use this tool when the user asks to show, visualize, compare, or continue in ChatGPT, distinguishing it from sibling tools like scenario_what_if or assess_family_friendly_score.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Always use this when the user asks to show, visualize, compare, or continue in ChatGPT.' This clearly defines the context for invocation, though it does not list specific exclusions or when not to use the tool.

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