boda_licensing_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and scope boundaries are set. The description adds the word 'DEMO', which hints at limited or sample data but is not explained. No other behavioral details (e.g., response format, error cases, county-specific differences) are disclosed.

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 concise: two short fragments totaling fewer than ten words. It is front-loaded with the core resource and adds the DEMO label for context. The structure is minimal but acceptable, though the second fragment feels like an annotation rather than a fully formed sentence.

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 simple optional parameter, readOnly annotation, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. The ambiguous 'DEMO' label raises questions about data authenticity or completeness, and the description does not clarify what the tool actually returns or its limitations, so it falls slightly short of complete.

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 input schema describes the single 'county' parameter with 100% coverage, and the default/null behavior is clear. The description does not add any additional meaning about how the county parameter affects the results, so it does not go beyond the schema.

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 specifies a concrete resource ('Boda boda (motorcycle taxi) licensing requirements') and adds geographic scope ('in Kenya'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like matatu_route_finder or freight_logistics_guide. It lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'lists' or 'provides'), but the intent is clear from context.

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 usage context is implied by the resource name: use this tool when you need boda boda licensing information for a specific county. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to the sibling tools (e.g., matatu_route_finder). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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