affordable_housing_guide

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.