Trade Union Directory

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 behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about actions, side effects, return format, or limitations. The only extra signal is 'DEMO', which hints at incompleteness but doesn't explain behavior. For a tool that likely returns directory data, no mention is made of output structure or pagination – a total lack of transparency.

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 short sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core subject ('Kenya trade union directory') and the 'DEMO' note is appended. This is highly efficient for what it conveys, though it may be too terse – but the dimension rewards sparseness, and it delivers the minimal information cleanly.

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?

For a simple directory tool with one parameter, the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain what the directory contains, how to use the 'sector' parameter, what the output looks like, or any filter behavior. Even though an output schema exists, the description offers no context to guide an agent toward correct invocation. It fails to provide a complete picture.

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 has one parameter, 'sector', with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not compensate: it never mentions 'sector', expected values, or how it filters results. The parameter is only self-evident from its name, but the description adds no semantic value.

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 identifies the resource: 'Kenya trade union directory and worker rights organizations.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like minimum_wage_lookup and unfair_dismissal_guide. However, it lacks a specific verb (e.g., 'list', 'search', 'retrieve'), relying on the noun 'directory' to imply the action. The 'DEMO' suffix is a minor distraction but doesn't obscure the core purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't state when to use it for trade union information, nor when to prefer a sibling tool like labour_court_guide. It merely states what it is, leaving the agent to infer the use case. No exclusions or contextual clues are provided.

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