esr_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful substance beyond that: the regulatory cut-off date, that historical obligations and penalties remain live, and that imposed penalties are not refundable — context an agent needs to answer correctly rather than just safely.

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 statement is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a single dense but fully relevant block of scope information. Every sentence carries legal context that changes the correct answer, so nothing 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 and no parameters, the description carries only what the structured fields cannot: the regulatory validity window and the survival of historical obligations. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to explain inputs at all.

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 current status of UAE Economic Substance Regulations') and immediately bounds the answer with the temporal scope. No sibling tool covers ESR, so the agent can identify this as the sole authority for that topic without ambiguity.

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 clarifies what the status means (post-2022 exemption, live 2019-2022 obligations, non-refundable penalties), which implicitly tells the agent when the answer applies. However, it never explicitly says when to call this tool or how to route a user who needs, say, filing guides or penalty calculations.

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