attestation_guide

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists the steps in the attestation chain, giving insight into the tool's behavior (a guided walkthrough). However, it does not describe the output format or any potential side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects ambiguous for a guide tool.

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 with just two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides critical context. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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 this is a guide tool with simple parameters and an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the essential context: the non-Hague status and the steps involved. It is complete enough for an agent to decide to invoke it, though it could mention the output nature (e.g., step-by-step instructions).

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 the input schema already describes both parameters ('home_country' and 'document_type') with clear default values and allowed values. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Walk through the UAE attestation chain for a foreign document.' The verb 'walk through' combined with the specific resource 'UAE attestation chain' makes the action and scope unambiguous. It is easily distinguished from sibling guides like ejari_guide or rental_dispute_guide.

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?

Description explicitly notes that the UAE is not a Hague member and that foreign documents require the full 5-step legalization chain, which implicitly guides when to use this tool (for foreign documents needing attestation). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools.

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