dul_eligibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful epistemic caveat (the 5-day average is not a guarantee) that goes beyond structured fields, but says nothing about behavior when bank_id or free_zone is omitted, which is the main ambiguity given both are optional.

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, which is good, but the middle of the description spends two sentences on press-release background (the 12 November 2025 announcement, seven banks) that adds little to selection or invocation. The caveat sentence does earn its place; the announcement date does not.

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, and both optional parameters are fully documented in the schema. What is missing is the usage framing required for a lookup tool with two optional filters over a large sibling set of banking and free-zone tools.

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%, so both parameters are already documented with slug examples, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema and does not explain the interaction between the two optional filters.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: reporting DUL bank integration and coverage. That is enough for an agent to grasp what the tool returns, and the scope sentence (mainland and free zone businesses in Dubai) sharpens it. It stops short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like bank_details or list_banks.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named despite many plausible siblings (bank_details, bank_recommendation, list_free_zones, free_zone_details). The agent must infer the triggering scenario entirely from the purpose sentence.

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