religious_community_services

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Welfare and social services' and 'DEMO,' without disclosing what operations are performed, whether it is read-only or mutating, or any side effects.

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 (two clauses), but the 'DEMO' label may confuse. It is concise, but room for more context without being verbose.

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 no parameters and an output schema exists, but the description is too minimal. It does not explain what specific welfare/services are covered, how they differ from sibling tools, or whether 'DEMO' indicates non-functional data.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description adds meaning by specifying the subject and scope (Kenya religious institutions), which goes beyond the schema. Per baseline rule, 0 params = baseline 4.

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 states it covers 'Welfare and social services by Kenya religious institutions,' which clarifies the domain. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'community_welfare_guide,' and the meaning of 'DEMO' is ambiguous.

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 like 'community_welfare_guide' or 'muslim_community_guide.' The agent receives no context for selection.

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