nema_permit_guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the tool covers permit requirements and process, but does not mention read-only nature, return format, limitations (e.g., demo data), or any side effects. The DEMO tag hints at limited functionality but is insufficient.

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 (two fragments), which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It front-loads the purpose, but the 'DEMO' suffix feels tacked on. Every sentence earns its place, but the overall structure lacks completeness.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameters, output, constraints, or how the demo aspect affects usage. Agent would lack vital context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter meaning. It does not hint at what 'activity_type' or 'county' accept (e.g., allowed activities, county names). The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 provides NEMA environmental permit requirements and process in Kenya, aligning with the tool name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like environmental_rights_query, and the 'DEMO' tag may cause confusion about its actual utility.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., climate_adaptation_guide, environmental_rights_query). The description lacks any context about appropriate usage scenarios or exclusions.

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