emiratisation_requirements

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. The description adds domain substance (the actual quotas and AED 10,000/month charge) but no operational traits such as update cadence, source jurisdiction coverage, or staleness of the figures.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by two scoping sentences. It is dense and largely data that arguably duplicates the output schema, but every clause is relevant to the Emiratisation bands and none is padding.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the one optional parameter is fully covered by the schema. The description is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly; only explicit usage routing is absent, which is a minor gap for a single-domain lookup.

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% and the single optional parameter (employee_count) is already documented in the schema as flagging the applicable band. The description adds no syntax, valid-range, or edge-case meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 MOHRE Emiratisation targets and non-compliance charges.' An agent immediately knows this is a UAE labour-law compliance lookup, and no sibling tool covers this domain, so there is no ambiguity to resolve.

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 text is almost entirely a dump of regulatory content (targets, percentages, deadlines) rather than guidance. It never states when to call the tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to adjacent compliance tools like moiat_requirements or esr_status.

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