halal_certification

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

The description discloses the nature of the output (guidance) and relevant background (authority, standards), which is sufficient for a non-destructive read operation. However, without annotations, it lacks details on safety, permissions, or side effects, though none are expected.

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 three sentences: a clear head statement followed by concise factual details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or extra words.

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 the tool has an output schema, the description appropriately does not explain return values. It provides essential context about the authority and standards. Could be considered complete for a guidance tool, though more detail on output format might help.

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 coverage is 100% with a description for 'product_category' ('Optional filter on the products list.'), and the tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond this. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Return UAE halal certification guidance' specifying the resource and action, and provides relevant details such as authority and standards. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'moiat_requirements', which may have a similar 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?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. With many sibling tools, explicit usage context would be beneficial.

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