ejari_guide

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a guide (read-only, nondestructive). With no annotations, it carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It is clear and accurate, though it does not mention potential rate limits or costs, which are likely not applicable.

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 at two sentences, with the main action (returning the guide) front-loaded. Every word adds value; no fluff.

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 no parameters and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description is complete. It sufficiently informs the agent about what to expect from the output, covering all relevant aspects of the guide.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema provides no information. The description adds significant meaning by detailing what the guide covers (documents, fees, channels, etc.), which goes beyond the empty 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 clearly states that the tool returns the full Ejari registration guide and lists specific content areas (documents, fees, timelines, channels, common mistakes). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rental_dispute_guide and dld_search_rent_contracts by focusing on the registration process 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?

The description implies usage for obtaining the complete guide, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when not to use it or when to prefer sibling tools like rental_dispute_guide.

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