scenario_what_if

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing that the tool is safe and read-only. The description reinforces this with 'simulate', which implies no side effects. It adds useful context about scope (10 prefectures) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or authentication requirements.

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: two sentences (one English, one Japanese) that immediately convey the tool's core functionality. No extraneous words; every phrase adds value. This is a model of efficient communication.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, 3 enums) and lack of output schema, the description provides necessary context (geographic scope, scenario types) but omits details about the return format, result interpretation, or performance considerations. Some of this could be inferred from the param descriptions, but completeness is moderate.

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 has 6 parameters with 67% description coverage (4 of 6 have descriptions). The description does not delve into parameter details beyond mentioning scenario types. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description adds minimal extra value beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'What-If scenario analysis: simulate impact of new stations, commercial facilities, population changes on land prices and investment scores.' It specifies a concrete verb (simulate) and resource (land prices and investment scores). The inclusion of geographic scope ('10 prefectures') further distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'simulate_aichi_future'.

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 scenario analysis but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as 'simulate_aichi_future' or 'simulate_landscape_impact'. There is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use this tool. The mention of '10 prefectures' provides some context but is insufficient.

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