ejari_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds useful scope context (which facets of the guide are included), but does not mention how fresh the guide content is or what form the answer takes beyond the output schema.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the coverage list. Every clause maps to a content facet an agent would search on (documents, fees, timelines, channels, pitfalls).

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?

For a parameterless guide tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient: it names the content domains and the agent need not be told return format. It stops short of stating prerequisites or when to prefer a sibling guide, which would make it fully 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing for the description to compensate for; the description correctly does not invent parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the full Ejari registration guide') and enumerates the content domains covered (documents, fees by channel, timelines, common mistakes). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from adjacent guide-style siblings such as rental_dispute_guide, rera_rent_increase, or attestation_guide, so the agent must infer scope.

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?

Usage is only implied through the enumerated content: an agent can infer 'use when you need Ejari registration requirements/fees/process', but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing away from lookalike tooling (rental dispute, rent increase, rent_estimate). Adequate but leaves selection to inference.

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