simulate_aichi_future

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying that the tool outputs a Markdown report and simulates future value based on specific projects, providing context beyond the 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?

The description is two sentences (English and Japanese), front-loaded with the tool's purpose and key details. Every sentence is informative with no wasted words.

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 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and expected inputs. However, it does not describe the output structure beyond 'Markdown report', which could be more explicit.

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%. The description adds meaning by listing example projects corresponding to scenario enum values (e.g., linear_chuo). It provides example cities for the required 'city' parameter. However, it does not explain each parameter in depth beyond schema descriptions.

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 it is a simulator for Aichi future value, listing specific projects (Linear Chuo Shinkansen, Centrair 2nd runway, etc.) and output format (Markdown report). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'scenario_what_if' or 'forecast_land_price_trend' by focusing on Aichi region and land price simulation.

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 use for Aichi land price simulation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'forecast_land_price_trend' or 'compare_prefectures'. No exclusion criteria or when-not guidance is provided.

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