Crisis Line Directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The "DEMO" tag does disclose that this is a demonstration resource, which hints at limited authenticity, but nothing is said about what the tool returns, whether the data is current, or the nature of the emergency resources. Minimal but non-zero disclosure.

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?

One short sentence with the key scoping facts front-loaded. The "DEMO" suffix is slightly awkward but conveys important status information and doesn't add meaningful bloat for a zero-parameter tool.

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 output schema covers return structure and there are no parameters, so the core calling contract is simple. However, the ambiguous DEMO status and the lack of any usage distinction from sibling mental-health tools leave an agent uncertain about when and how to rely on this directory.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the content scope (Kenya, crisis lines, emergency resources), which is all the parameter-level meaning a no-parameter tool needs.

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?

"Kenya mental health crisis lines and emergency resources" clearly identifies the resource type, geographic scope, and domain, distinguishing it from siblings like mental_health_provider_finder (providers) and mental_health_rights (rights). The verb is implied rather than explicit but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to call this tool versus siblings. An agent cannot tell whether to use this over self_help_resources or mental_health_provider_finder for a given user need. The crisis/emergency framing implies urgency, but no explicit when/when-not criteria are given.

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