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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds no further behavioral disclosure. The mention of 'DEMO' might hint at a non-production state but is vague. No behavioral traits beyond read-only are described.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's subject matter. It is front-loaded with key information and contains no redundant words.

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 that the tool has an output schema (even if content unknown) and fully documented parameters, the description is mostly complete. It could briefly state that it's a guide rather than a data retrieval tool, but the presence of the output schema mitigates the need.

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 100%; each parameter (county, income_range) is already described in the schema. The tool description does not add any extra context or examples beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 covers Kenya affordable housing programs and lists specific examples (Boma Yangu, SHA, county schemes). The word 'DEMO' introduces slight ambiguity but does not obscure the core purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like building_permit_guide by focusing on housing programs.

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 explicit guidance on when to use or when to prefer alternative tools. The description only states the tool's content; it does not contrast with siblings or specify prerequisites or limitations.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's lack of behavioral details is acceptable. However, the 'DEMO' flag is not explained, and no additional behavioral context (e.g., response format) is provided beyond the annotation.

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 very short (one sentence plus 'DEMO'), which is concise but lacks structure. It is not verbose, but the brevity leaves out essential information.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not clarify what the guide returns. Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, 1 required), the description is incomplete for an agent to understand its full capability.

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 description does not mention the parameters 'county' or 'project_type', despite the schema having 0% description coverage. With no param documentation in the description, the agent receives no added meaning beyond the schema's raw structure.

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 tool as a guide for building plan approval and permits in Kenya counties, which differentiates it from sibling tools like affordable_housing_guide or rental_market_guide. However, the term 'DEMO' adds a slight ambiguity about its completeness.

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 description does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. The sibling tools cover related topics, but no differentiation is mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true (safe read operation). The description adds 'DEMO', which signals that outputs may be sample or non-real data, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loads the key topic. No unnecessary words. However, it could benefit from a bit more structure without losing conciseness.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere) and annotations are present, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks information on how parameters affect results and does not differentiate from sibling tools. 'DEMO' is important but other context is missing.

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 description does not mention or explain the parameters (income_kes_monthly, property_value_kes). Schema coverage is 50% (only property_value_kes has a description). The description fails to add meaning for the undocumented parameter, leaving a gap.

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 lists topics (mortgages, SACCOS, tenant purchase schemes) but does not state an explicit action verb (e.g., 'provides a guide' or 'gives information'). The label 'DEMO' adds confusion about its actual function. It is implied to be a guide, but purpose is vague.

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 implies usage for housing finance topics, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools (e.g., affordable_housing_guide, rental_market_guide). No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be read-only. The description adds no further behavioral traits (e.g., response format, limitations, demo nature), but also does not contradict annotations.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the key purpose. However, the trailing 'DEMO' is cryptic and could be misleading.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to clarify what the tool returns (e.g., price ranges, rights summaries). It is incomplete for agent decision-making, especially given parameter documentation gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters like 'county', 'bedrooms', 'area_type'. It does not mention any of them, leaving the agent to infer meaning from names alone.

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 Kenya rental market info on prices, tenant rights, and county-specific data. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'tenant_rights_guide', which overlaps in scope.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tenant_rights_guide). The description only lists content areas without context on selection criteria.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds 'DEMO', which signals non-production readiness, but does not elaborate on behavior or limitations. Minimal added value.

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 very short, which is concise, but it fails to include essential information. Frontloading is not an issue, but brevity sacrifices clarity.

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 low schema coverage and lack of parameter guidance, the description is insufficient. An output schema exists but is not referenced. Overall, the description does not enable effective tool usage.

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 sole parameter 'topic' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain what values it expects or how it affects results. Completely lacking.

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 mentions specific acts and it's a demo, but does not clearly state the tool's function (e.g., 'Provides information about tenant rights'). The purpose is implied rather than explicit.

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 siblings like affordable_housing_guide or rental_market_guide. The description lacks context for selecting among alternatives.

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