tax_incentives_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only states a topic ('Kenya investment tax incentives and reliefs') and 'DEMO', but doesn't disclose whether the tool returns static information, requires parameters, or what the output structure is. The word 'DEMO' hints at limited functionality but is left undefined, leaving the agent uncertain about side effects or data freshness.

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 only two sentences and gets straight to the topic, but 'DEMO' is a filler word that doesn't earn its place. It's concise but under-specified; the brevity is not a substitute for missing semantic content. A score of 3 reflects acceptable minimalism with room for improvement.

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 an output schema exists and there is only one optional parameter, the description leaves out core meaning: it doesn't explain what the tool actually does, what kind of information it returns, or how the sector parameter influences the output. Given that siblings like 'vat_guide' and 'pin_registration_guide' exist, this description is too thin to support reliable tool selection.

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 schema defines one optional 'sector' parameter, but the description never mentions it. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate by explaining valid values, default behavior, or how sector affects the results. The agent is left to guess whether the parameter filters incentives by industry or has other semantics.

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 the tool's subject as 'Kenya investment tax incentives and reliefs', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like paye_calculator or vat_guide. However, it lacks an explicit verb, so it doesn't say whether the tool lists, explains, or calculates these incentives. The 'DEMO' suffix adds noise but does not obscure the topic.

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 compared to siblings. It doesn't mention prerequisites, alternative tools, or scenarios where this guide would be appropriate. The presence of sibling tools like withholding_tax_rates or tax_filing_calendar emphasizes the need for differentiation, but none is offered.

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