land_rights_query

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

With no annotations, the description must inform about behavioral traits, but it only states the topic and that it is a demo. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are needed, or any side effects, which is insufficient.

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 very short and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the inclusion of 'DEMO' adds little value and could mislead about reliability. It is concise but lacks necessary detail.

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, the description does not need to detail return values, but it still fails to provide essential context such as the parameter's meaning or usage examples. The tool is simple, yet the description is incomplete.

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 single 'topic' parameter has zero schema description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of valid values or expected format. This leaves the agent unable to construct correct input.

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 'Land rights under Kenya Constitution 2010 and Land Act 2012. DEMO.' clearly indicates the subject area and specific laws, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'land_dispute_paths' or 'land_rates_query'. However, it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'query' or 'retrieve'), making the purpose slightly less precise.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or use-case context, leaving the agent without decision support.

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