sacco_finder

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only 'DEMO' hints at limited functionality, but no details on behavior, error handling, or what happens when both parameters are used. Insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or states.

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?

Extremely short, but lacks essential information. The 'DEMO' tag adds ambiguity. Not concise in a helpful way; it is under-specified.

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?

With two optional parameters and an output schema, the description should explain what is returned and how parameters interact. It omits return format, pagination, and the meaning of 'DEMO'. Incomplete for effective tool use.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It mentions 'by county or sector' but does not clarify format, allowed values, or whether parameters behave as AND or OR. For 0% coverage, more detail is needed.

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 the tool finds accredited SACCOs in Kenya, with filtering by county or sector. The verb 'Find' and resource 'accredited SACCOs' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like chama_formation_guide or cooperative_benefits, which are guides not a finder.

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 on when to use this tool vs siblings. Does not mention scenarios where one parameter is preferred over the other, or indicate limitations of the 'DEMO' version. Lacks any usage context.

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