will_writing_guide

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Guide' and 'DEMO', but does not explain if it returns a template, reads, writes, or requires any prerequisites. The output schema exists but is not described.

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 (6 words), which is concise. However, 'DEMO' is arguably unnecessary and reduces clarity, but overall it is front-loaded and efficient.

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 potential legal significance, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the output contains, whether it is a static reference or interactive, or any limitations. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description should provide more 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?

There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, fulfilling the baseline for zero-param tools. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable since none exist.

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 it is a guide for writing a legal will in Kenya, distinguishing it from sibling tools like inheritance_dispute_guide. However, it is very brief and includes 'DEMO' which may confuse the tool's reliability.

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 implies use when needing a will-writing guide, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to siblings. Sibling names provide thematic differentiation but no direct comparisons.

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