町丁目配下の番地一覧

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses auto-completion of input variations (gun names, city omissions, variant characters), output scope (banchi only, not building numbers), and chome aggregation behavior. These are meaningful behavioral insights beyond the schema, though it does not mention error handling or pagination.

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 a compact three-sentence paragraph, each sentence adding distinct information: core function, chome behavior, and input normalization. No filler or redundancy; it is efficiently structured and front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains inputs and behavioral nuances. It covers town normalization, chome handling, and limitations, making it self-contained for selecting and invoking the tool. Minor gaps like return format and limit semantics prevent a perfect score.

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 coverage is 67%, so the description adds valuable context for the 'town' parameter by explaining auto-completion, and for 'chome' by clarifying that omission returns all chome results aggregated. The 'limit' parameter is not described, but other parameters receive depth beyond their 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 the tool enumerates banchi (lot numbers) for a specified town, matching the title. It differentiates from siblings by specifying the resource type (banchi under a town) and notes chome handling, which is distinct from generic address search or child address listing.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (to list banchi for a town) and explains behavior for towns with and without chome. It also states a limitation (building numbers are not obtainable), but doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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