simulate_aichi_future

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it outputs a Markdown report, which is a behavioral trait beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose data sources, model assumptions, or rate limits.

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 in English and one in Japanese, which is somewhat redundant. It front-loads the purpose but could be more concise by avoiding duplication.

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 gives an overview of the simulation scope and output format, but lacks details on methodology, data sources, or output structure. Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient but not complete context.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions in schema). The tool description does not add further parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 is a future value simulator for Aichi prefecture, listing specific drivers (Linear Chuo Shinkansen, Centrair 2nd runway, Toyota EV, Expo legacy) and output format (Markdown report). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'simulate_landscape_impact' or 'simulate_leveraged_cashflow'.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It implies usage for macro-level land price impact analysis in Aichi, but lacks direct comparisons or exclusions.

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