community_welfare_guide

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the title and does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or return behavior. The 'DEMO' tag may hint at non-production data, but it is not a sufficient behavioral disclosure. With annotations present, the description contributes minimal extra value.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence. However, the inclusion of 'DEMO' is extraneous and does not serve the agent's understanding. While front-loaded with the core purpose, the brevity sacrifices completeness and leaves out useful details. Not every part 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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no siblings, output schema exists), the description is still incomplete. It does not explain how the results are structured, what 'accessing programs' means operationally, or the range of possible values for 'need.' The output schema may fill some gaps, but the description itself lacks sufficient context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'need,' which is well-documented in the schema. The tool description does not mention the parameter or provide additional context beyond the schema. Per the guidelines, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and no extra meaning is added.

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: 'How to access Kenya religious community welfare programs.' It specifies the verb 'access' and the resource 'Kenya religious community welfare programs,' making the action and target unambiguous. However, the addition of 'DEMO' introduces slight ambiguity about the tool's production readiness.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no sibling tools, so differentiation is not required, but the description does not explain typical use cases or prerequisites for using the guide. The lack of usage context limits the agent's ability to decide when to invoke this tool.

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