county_contact_directory

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavior but only says 'contact directory' and 'DEMO'. It does not disclose whether it returns all counties, handles null input, requires authentication, or any side effects. The 'DEMO' tag suggests non-production data but is not explicit.

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 short (one sentence) but lacks substantive information. Conciseness is not valuable when it omits critical details; this is underspecification, not efficiency.

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?

Despite having an output schema and only one parameter, the description fails to explain what the directory contains (e.g., fields returned) or how to use the parameter. For a directory tool, more context is needed to be minimally useful.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning to the single parameter 'county'. The schema indicates it can be string or null but the description does not explain how it filters or what default behavior is.

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 'Kenya county government contact directory' which vaguely indicates a directory for county contacts, but does not specify what type of contact information (e.g., phone, address) or how it relates to sibling tools like 'county_information' or 'ward_information'. The addition of 'DEMO' adds ambiguity about data authenticity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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