attestation_guide

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's added value is the domain caveat: no Hague Apostille membership as of September 2026, and a digital route for eligible UAE-issued documents. The word 'illustrative' usefully signals the output is generic guidance rather than a definitive per-case ruling, which is real behavioral disclosure beyond the 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 purpose is front-loaded in the opening sentence and the remaining three lines are compact, high-signal domain context. Line breaks are odd for a two-paragraph description but nothing is padded or repetitive.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, both params are fully documented, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description adds the key domain premise and a freshness date. The only gap is guidance on what to do when the guide does not cover a specific receiving authority.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (home_country, document_type) are already documented, and the description only alludes to them via 'the document, issuing country and receiving authority'. It adds no syntax, precedence, or format detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource pairing ('Explain UAE document attestation routes') plus an explicit scope note that foreign chains are illustrative. This is clearly distinguishable from the other guide-style siblings (ejari_guide, nol_card_guide, submission_guide) by domain. It stops short of naming a sibling it should be preferred over.

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 explains that 'steps depend on the document, issuing country and receiving authority', which implies when the tool's answer varies, but never states when to call this versus a sibling guide or a lookup tool. No exclusions or alternatives are given, so usage is only inferable.

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