recommend_renovation_targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's non-destructive. The description adds that it performs a scan across all wards, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as data source freshness, pagination, or limits beyond what the schema indicates.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences (English and Japanese) that front-load the key action and scope. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff.

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 moderate complexity (4 param, no output schema), the description explains the domain (Nagoya wards, yield ranking) but does not specify the output format (e.g., list of neighborhoods with scores). It is almost complete but lacks explicit output 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?

The input schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions (all four have short descriptions). The tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only restates the overall purpose. Therefore, the description provides no additional parameter clarity beyond 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's purpose: ranking neighborhoods by renovation yield across all 16 Nagoya wards. It uses a specific verb ('scan' and 'rank') and resource ('neighborhoods'), and distinguishes from siblings like analyze_renovation_yield which likely does single-property analysis.

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 indicates the tool is for broad scanning across all wards, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like drill_down_local_analysis or analyze_renovation_yield. It provides clear context but lacks exclusion criteria.

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