cooperative_rights_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only gives a vague topic. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication, leaving agents uninformed.

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, but at the expense of clarity. It is under-specified for an agent to understand its purpose or usage effectively.

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 has one parameter and an output schema exists, the description still fails to provide sufficient context about what the tool does, how to use it, or what to expect as output.

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 'topic' is of type string with no enums and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to clarify what topics are acceptable or expected.

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 'Rights and protections for Kenya cooperative members. DEMO.' is vague and does not clearly specify what the tool does beyond its name. It lacks a specific verb and resource, and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like cooperative_benefits or chama_formation_guide.

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. The sibling tools suggest related but different functionalities, but no explicit conditions or exclusions are mentioned.

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