WhatIfシナリオ分析

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description only says 'simulate impact', adding no further behavioral context about rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects 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?

Two sentences, bilingual, front-loaded with key action and scope. Every word adds value; no redundancy or 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?

The description covers the essential function and scope, and an output schema exists to explain return values. However, it lacks details on limitations (which 10 prefectures, how results are tabulated) and could be more complete for a complex simulation tool.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the schema already documents most parameters adequately. The description adds no extra meaning beyond summarizing the tool's overall function. A score of 3 is appropriate as baseline.

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 simulates impact of various scenarios on land prices and investment scores, with a specific scope of 10 prefectures. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like forecast_land_price_trend or simulate_landscape_impact by focusing on what-if 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 implies the tool is for exploratory scenario analysis but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use conditions or comparisons to siblings are given.

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