citizen_feedback_channels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It only mentions 'DEMO,' implying it may be non-functional or sample data, but does not clarify whether the tool reads data, returns a list, or requires authentication. Behavioral traits are not disclosed.

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 a single sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or sections) and omits essential details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently brief.

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 lack of annotations and the single parameter with no schema description, the tool is incomplete. The output schema exists but is not described in the description. The sibling tools indicate a contextual domain, but the description fails to provide enough information for correct invocation.

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 only parameter, issue_type, is a required string with no description, enum, or format. The tool description mentions 'feedback, complaints' but does not map issue_type to these categories or suggest valid values. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 provides 'official channels for Kenyan citizen feedback, complaints, and government access,' which clearly identifies the domain. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., gazette_search, parliament_tracker) that cover different topics. However, 'channels' is somewhat vague and does not specify the tool's output (e.g., list, details).

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, such as open_data_guide or parliament_tracker. There are no instructions on prerequisites or exclusions.

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