Bab Aljazair

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly says the tool returns checklist data 'without rendering a widget' (so no UI side effects) and instructs to 'preserve the research disclosure in any explanation', which is a specific behavior not covered by 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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds one critical behavioral instruction. Every word 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (rendering return value explanation unnecessary) and detailed parameter descriptions, the description is nearly complete. It could briefly note that the 'applicants' parameter is optional for personalizing requirements, but overall it provides sufficient context for an AI agent.

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 100%, with detailed descriptions for all 4 parameters (language, officeId, applicants, procedureId). The description does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already communicates, so a baseline score 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 states the tool returns 'concise, office-aware checklist data for one consular procedure' without rendering a widget, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_consular_procedures (which returns a list) and show_consular_dossier (which likely shows a dossier). The verb 'Return' and resource 'checklist data' are specific.

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?

Usage context is implied (to retrieve details for a specific procedure after using search_consular_procedures), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives. The description could be improved by noting that it is for individual procedures, not for browsing.

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 that it provides official websites, which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply. For a read-only tool, 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 sentences: first states purpose and output, second gives usage context. Front-loaded, no redundancy. Every word 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?

The tool has one optional parameter and an output schema. The description covers purpose and usage hint adequately. It does not discuss error conditions but is sufficient for a simple read-only list.

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% for the single 'language' parameter. The description does not mention the parameter, so it adds no value beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the tool lists Algerian consular offices in France with jurisdictions and websites, distinguishing it from sibling tools by mentioning 'use when the user wants the network or needs to choose manually'. However, it could be more explicit in contrasting with similar tools like locate_consular_office.

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 provides a usage hint ('Use when the user wants the network or needs to choose manually') but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison with siblings. This is adequate but not robust.

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 safe-read nature is clear. The description adds that it resolves the 'normally responsible' office, implying a deterministic mapping based on jurisdiction. No contradictions.

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 short sentences: first states the core purpose, second lists acceptable inputs. No waste, front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 lookup tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose and input sufficiently. It could mention handling of invalid inputs (e.g., unknown codes), but overall it is adequate given the context signals.

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 100%; both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description repeats the input types already in the schema ('postal code, department number, city, or office name') without adding new semantic detail, so 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 clearly states the tool resolves the competent Algerian consular office for a residence in France. It specifies the types of inputs accepted (postal code, department number, city, office name), distinguishing it from siblings like list_consular_offices or search_consular_procedures.

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 when needing to find the responsible office for a residence, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_consular_offices (which might list all offices) or provide guidance on when not to use it. Lacks explicit when-not or alternatives.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, confirming safe read operation. Description adds context that including an office changes the research level, which is useful behavioral insight beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with verb and purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, description lacks info on how query vs theme work, how limit affects results, and interaction between parameters, leaving gaps for a search tool with 5 parameters.

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 only 20% (only language has description). Tool description only mentions officeId ('optionally include an office') and does not explain query, theme, limit, or language. Fails to compensate for low schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Search', resource 'catalogue of Algerian consular procedures', and purpose 'resolve procedure IDs from natural-language intent'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_consular_procedure (retrieve specific) and list_consular_offices.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('resolve procedure IDs from user natural-language intent'). Mentions optional inclusion of office to 'expose research level', but does not provide when-not-to-use or direct comparison to siblings, though context implies distinctions.

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 show readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds 'interactive' and 'dossier checklist' context, but does not detail interactivity scope. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence is necessary.

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 the existence of an output schema and annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and expected behavior for a display-only tool.

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 description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what schema provides. Baseline score 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 uses a specific verb 'Render' and resource 'interactive dossier checklist', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that search or list offices/procedures.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'once the office and procedure IDs are known' and for 'prepare, personalize, or track'. Lacks explicit alternatives but context is clear.

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