Labour Court Guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The word 'DEMO' hints that the tool is a demonstration, but the description does not explain what happens when invoked, whether it returns static text, answers a query, or requires specific input. The behavioral profile is essentially undeclared.

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 short, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. 'Labour Relations Court and ELRC guidance in Kenya' states a topic, while 'DEMO.' adds a status marker but no operational value. Important information about behavior and parameters is absent.

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?

Even though the tool has only one optional parameter and an output schema is present, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The query parameter semantics are undefined, the behavior is unclear, and there is no indication of what output to expect. The description reads more like a label than a usable tool definition.

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 defines one optional 'query' parameter with default null, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description never mentions the query parameter or explains what kind of query it expects. The description entirely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 identifies the domain as 'Labour Relations Court and ELRC guidance in Kenya,' which adds specificity beyond the title by naming ELRC and the jurisdiction. However, it lacks an explicit action verb and reads as a noun phrase rather than a clear statement of what the tool does. It is vague about whether the tool answers questions, retrieves documents, or provides procedural guidance.

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 instead of its siblings, such as unfair_dismissal_guide or maternity_paternity_rights. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or alternative tools. An agent would have to infer appropriateness solely from the tool name and topic.

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