moiat_requirements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds fee/timeline facts but no behavioral context such as whether the figures are static or refresh, or any auth constraints. With annotations carrying the load, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Front-loaded and brief: purpose sentence first, then supporting detail. It is slightly padded by embedding the actual answer values (AED 1,000/AED 2,000, 10 working days), which are return data already available via the output schema, but nothing is verbose.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs to identify it. The one real gap is the missing distinction from the 'halal_certification' sibling, which prevents a 5.

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 per the rubric. The description cannot and need not add parameter meaning, and it correctly avoids inventing any.

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 ('Return') and a precise resource ('MOIAT registration fees and timeline for Halal Certification Bodies'), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the related 'halal_certification' sibling or explain how the two differ.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. Given the presence of 'halal_certification' and other *_requirements tools, the description should say when this MOIAT-specific fee tool is the right one to call, but it leaves that entirely to inference.

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