GCC Domestic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds content scope (canonical links, directories, pricing, verification guides) but does not disclose additional operational behavior such as output format, link freshness, or whether it returns external URLs directly.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the tool's content and scope, and the second provides immediate usage guidance. The most important information is 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 read-only guide tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the guide covers, what types of links it provides, and when to use it. The only missing detail, the country enum, is fully covered by the input schema.

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 100%, and the only parameter, country, is fully enumerated in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a platform guide explaining how hiring through GCC Domestic works, and enumerates its content: country directories, application page, pricing, and verification guides. It also distinguishes itself from deeper search tools by positioning this as an orientation resource.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to orient before deeper searches, or to hand a user the right link.' This gives clear context and intent, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: data is updated monthly, the bands are the same ones published elsewhere on the site, currencies vary by country (AED vs SAR), and unsupported countries produce guide links rather than bands. This goes beyond the structured metadata.

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 concise sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose and dimensions, and the second adds provenance and currency details. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant filler or restating of the tool name.

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 low-complexity read-only tool with annotations covering safety and schema covering parameters, the description is largely complete: it states the source, update frequency, currencies, and the unsupported-country fallback. The only missing detail is behavior when called with no parameters or with only one parameter, but the phrase 'bands' plus the schema descriptions make the tool usable without that clarification.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the currency mapping (AED for UAE, SAR for Saudi Arabia), which reinforces the country parameter, but it does not meaningfully extend the schema's own explanations of country and nationality slugs. It mostly restates what the schema already 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 identifies the resource ('salary benchmarks for domestic workers in the Gulf') and the key dimensions ('by country and worker nationality'). The mention of 'published monthly' and the GCC context makes it distinct from sibling search and verification tools, so an agent can tell what this tool does at a glance.

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 intended use is implied: it is the tool for salary benchmark data. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it over siblings such as search_knowledge or get_platform_guide, and no exclusion criteria. The only partial guidance is the edge case that unsupported GCC countries return guide links, which tells the agent when the tool is less useful.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that results include contact details, licence information, and the official government registry link, which tells the agent what to expect from the response despite there being no output schema.

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 tight sentences: scope first, then filtering options, then return value. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or promotional language.

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 read-only search tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it covers geographic scope, filtering options, and result contents. It could still mention default behavior when no filters are supplied or how it differs from verify_agency_licence, but these are minor gaps.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented with their own descriptions and example values. The description mentions filtering by country, city, and free-text name query, but this largely mirrors the schema without adding significant new semantic detail.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Search' and identifies a precise resource: 'government-licensed domestic-worker recruitment agencies' across the six GCC countries. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like search_workers and verify_agency_licence by scope and by the registry-link return value.

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 when to use the tool—when looking for licensed domestic-worker agencies with optional filters—but it never explicitly states when to prefer an alternative such as verify_agency_licence. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, which is a gap given the sibling list.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only; cite the URL.' It also adds useful behavioral context by revealing what the agent receives (title, URL, snippet) and the citation expectation, which goes beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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 dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and scope, then immediately gives output shape and a usage note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the essential return shape (title, URL, snippet). Combined with the annotations covering the read-only safety profile and the schema covering parameters, the agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, and the input schema already documents query, lang, and limit with clear constraints. The description adds no real parameter-level meaning beyond noting English and Arabic, which the schema also mentions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Semantic search over GCC Domestic's published guides, blog posts and country pages.' It also enumerates the covered topics and explicitly states the return fields (title, URL, snippet), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling entity-search tools like search_agencies and search_workers.

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 for when to use the tool: queries about visas, procedures, salaries, contracts, refunds, and worker rights over GCC Domestic's published content. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the scope is concrete enough to route the right kinds of questions here.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: results contain public profile info, an agency contact is provided, and hiring always routes through the licensed agency. These are useful process constraints 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?

Three concise sentences front-load the purpose, summarize filtering, and close with the hiring workflow. Every sentence contributes distinct value and nothing is redundant or padded.

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 read-only list tool with three optional parameters, the description covers purpose, filters, return content, and the required agency-mediated hiring process. It omits details like pagination or default limit, but those are already implied by the schema and annotations, so the description is largely sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'filter by nationality and/or position' matches schema properties but adds no new details about formatting, defaults, or edge cases beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb 'Browse' and a clearly scoped resource: domestic workers listed as available through licensed GCC agencies, with explicit role examples. The subject matter makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools such as search_agencies and get_salary_benchmarks.

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 clear context for use (browsing available workers with nationality/position filters) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or mention situations where search_agencies or verify_agency_licence would be more appropriate. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the read-only annotations: the result is based on 'GCC Domestic' records and returns an official government registry link for independent verification, implying the tool's data is a starting point rather than authoritative. It does not explain error or not-found behavior, but for a read-only lookup this is acceptable.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by lookup options and return value. Every clause adds information needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 simple read-only lookup with a small schema, the description is largely complete: it states inputs and output, and the schema covers required and optional parameters. A minor gap is that possible licence status values or not-found behavior are not described, but this is not essential for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful examples of licence/facility number formats (UAE MOHRE, Saudi Musaned), which helps the agent recognize valid inputs beyond the bare schema.

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 uses a specific action verb and resource: 'Verify whether a Gulf recruitment agency is government-licensed.' It also clarifies the lookup modes (name or licence/facility number) and names the return value, which clearly separates it from sibling search tools like search_agencies.

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 usage context: use this tool when you need to verify a Gulf agency's government licence status, with explicit lookup by name or licence number. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.

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