住所階層の子要素一覧(ドリルダウン)

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

With no annotations supplied, the description discloses key behaviors: it only handles direct children, cannot go below chome, and automatically attempts to compensate for omissions and variant spellings. It does not mention return format or pagination limits, but the core behavioral traits are transparently stated.

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 compact and well-structured: a single main purpose sentence, a usage note, and a final note about auto-completion. Every sentence earns its place, no fluff or repetition of schema data beyond what adds clarity.

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 list tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, hierarchical constraints, exclusions, and special handling. It lacks explicit return value details (e.g., whether results include names/URIs), but given the tool's simplicity and sibling context, it is reasonably complete.

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 50%; the parent parameter is thoroughly described in the schema (hierarchy scope, auto-completion), and the description repeats this. The limit parameter has no description in either schema or description, so the tool description adds no new meaning for it. The contribution is limited to reinforcing parent semantics without covering the gap for limit.

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: '指定した住所(都道府県/市区町村/町丁目)の直接の子要素一覧を取得する' (fetches direct child elements of a specified address). It explicitly names the hierarchy levels and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_prefectures and list_banchi by focusing on drill-down from prefecture to city to town.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use: '都道府県→市区町村→町丁目のドリルダウンに使う' and clear exclusions: '丁目→番地の列挙はこのToolでは扱えない', indirectly directing users to other tools for lower levels. It also notes auto-completion behaviors, making conditions for use well-defined.

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