scenario_what_if

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, so the description's 'simulate' is consistent. The description adds that it covers 10 prefectures and specific scenario types, which provides moderate behavioral context beyond annotations.

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, both in English and Japanese, front-load the core purpose. Every word is necessary and no redundant information is present.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a high-level overview but lacks details on return format, how results are presented, or what 'investment scores' entail. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 67% (4 out of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description mentions scenario types (new stations, commercial facilities, population changes) which map to the scenario enum, but does not add meaning for other parameters like scale, horizon, or prefecture 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 simulates impact of new stations, commercial facilities, and population changes on land prices and investment scores, covering 10 prefectures. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like simulate_aichi_future or simulate_landscape_impact, which may have overlapping purposes.

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. It does not provide context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the general description alone.

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